What Factors Determine the Allocation of Aid by Arab Countries and Multilateral Agencies?

This article provides a statistical analysis of the determinants of Arab aid allocation using Heckman's two-step estimator. It is found that poorer, Arab, Islamic and Sub-Saharan African countries are more likely to receive some positive amount of Arab aid (gate-keeping stage). The same is true for countries not maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel as well as those with voting patterns in the United Nations General Assembly similar to Saudi Arabia. Arab and more populous countries also receive a higher share of the total aid allocated (level stage). The same is true for Islamic countries in the case of bilateral aid and countries with voting similarity in the case of multilateral aid. Donor interest, in particular Arab solidarity, plays a clear role at both stages, whereas recipient need as measured by a country's level of income only affects the gate-keeping stage, not the level stage.     

Balanced or Biased? Interest Groups and Legislative Lobbying in the European News Media

This article examines the coverage of legislative lobbying in European news media. The starting point thereby is that lobbying in the crowded European Union (EU)-level interest community is not only a struggle for direct access to policymakers, but that in order to realize policy goals many interest groups rely on political attention generated by the media. Our main research question is how media attention is skewed toward particular interests and which factors explain these varying levels of prominence. Our empirical analysis is based on a set of 125 legislative proposals adopted by the European Commission between 2008 and 2010. For all these cases we identified 379 interest organizations that made public statements, we coded the amount of media attention these organized interests gained, the type of statements they made as well as some key organizational features. While the aggregate levels of attention look pretty balanced, our evidence shows that media prominence is skewed toward particular types of interests; in particular that organized interests which oppose a proposed policy gain significantly higher levels of media attention.     

Is it none of their business? Business and democratization,the case of Turkey

This article explains how the Turkish business' regime preferences have evolved from pro-authoritarian to pro-democratic in the context of dual transitions, in response to changes in incentive structures shaped by domestic, regional and international parameters. It particularly focuses on big business and highlights the central role that greater exposure to international competition during the course of opening up and liberalization played in the evolution of its regime preferences. The article suggests that the central mechanism which has led to the regime preference change is socialization by strategic calculation facilitated by business' increasing incorporation into transnational networks. It asserts that the Turkish big business' experience is particularly interesting because international exposure not only created new opportunities for big business, but also new divisions and rivalries within the business community. These new rivals formed flourishing alliances with the government, with their accompanying claims to power that challenged the big business' previous hegemony in accessing state resources. In the process, big business' fear of losing its privileged status to rival business groups and the resulting uncertainties led big business to associate democratization with higher benefits, as they became increasingly aware of the link between democratization and diminished uncertainties, through their interaction with transnational business networks. Consequently, big business consolidated its pro-democratic stance as shifting domestic alliances enhanced the need for diminishing uncertainties, while internationalization along with the prospect of EU membership increased the cost of status quo.     

Data protection in Europe – Some thoughts on reading the academic manifesto

The commentary by academics on the proposed European General Data Protection Regulation in [2013] 29 CLSR 180 has provoked thoughts in response. The responder strongly agrees with the doubts expressed about the definition of personal data, anonymisation and the identifiability of individuals. On the other hand, he disagrees with the views on consent and legitimacy and proposes support for a risk-based approach to data protection. He suggests that data protection does not need to be defended from the attack that it stifles business, but is justifiable for its assertion of fundamental rights. In conclusion, he shares the criticism of the European Commission's delegated and implementing powers and is concerned that the Regulation will be rushed to a conclusion for reasons of political ambition.     

一种面向利益分析的政策研究方法

构建社会主义和谐社会,对政策制定的科学化和民主化提出了新的更高的要求,即必须更加重视各方利益的表达和协调,以实现共赢。本文在综合分析软科学和政策科学两个相对独立的学科现状的基础上,讨论当前政策研究在利益分析上存在的不足及其根源,指出政策研究需要超越先前主流的实证主义范式,发展面向利益分析的理论和方法。针对我国政策制定中利益分析和协调的现实需求,本文介绍了一种基于讨论式博弈和综合集成支持的公共政策实验方法(EPRM),论述了该方法的基本思路、运用过程和若干焦点问题。     

检察机关在民事公益诉讼中的角色分析

民事公益诉讼所保护的公共利益与刑事公诉中检察机关保护的国家利益是不同的,并且检察机关不能很好地兼顾个人利益,因此检察机关不能提起民事公益诉讼。这并不代表检察机关无所作为。基于既判力扩张所造成的利益扩散,民事公益诉讼迫切需要检察机关进入。同时"放射状"诉讼结构之下复杂利益格局更是需要检察机关做好检察监督,而立法上关于检察监督的规定过于概括,需要予以细化。     

环境信息公开公益诉讼现状考察

环境信息公开公益诉讼在我国法学界尚是一个崭新的话题,随着环境问题的日益严重及公民维权意识的增强,环境纠纷日益增多,自"环境信息公开公益诉讼第一案"被广泛公开报道以来,陆续出现了多起环境信息公开公益诉讼案件。我国环境信息公开公益诉讼存在受案的立法阻隔、环境信息公开申请实体请求受阻隔等困境。在国家立法对环境公益诉讼缺乏明确规定之时,环境公益诉讼的开创性实践"贵阳模式"值得推广,新环保法对环保公益诉讼主体的有限放开,也将为艰难前行的环境公益诉讼提供新的动力。     

民事法益的界定

民事法益是于权利之外存在的,法律主体享有的间接受法律保护的利益。按照不同的标准可以将法益分为不同的种类。法益具有前实定性、主体资格判断缺失性、表现形式不明确性、消极确认性、保护弱性等几方面的特征。     

著作权法中“合理使用”与公共利益研究

一般认为著作权法是私法,以保障著作权人的利益为归依.然而,随着网络时代著作权人专有权的不断扩张,作为限制著作权人权利的合理使用制度越来受到重视.一方面,合理使用制度保障了公众对作品的接近、增进了知识和学习、促进了民主文化;另一方面,公共利益又是判定某一使用作品的行为是否为合理使用的重要指标.从公共利益视角审视合理使用制度,分析两者之间的关系,具有重要的学术意义和实践价值.     

公共信托原则与土地环境损害赔偿的甄别标准

作为英美法系的一项古老原则,公共信托原则指的是政府应当保障社会公众能实现对环境资源所应当享有的权益,有时出于公共利益不得不使个人的财产权利作出一定的让步。但公共信托原则的适用经常与美国宪法的公用征收条款发生混淆或冲突,特别是如果事前政府并未获得财产所有权,却实际上由于对私人财产造成环境损害而侵犯了私人财产所有者对其财产享有的权利,政府是否应当向财产所有者赔偿损失,这就涉及公共信托原则与反向征收的甄别。二者甄别标准的确定需要对一系列相互冲突的范畴进行权衡,如社会的经济发展目标与环境资源保护目标、私人所有权与公众对环境资源的正当权益、公民的生存权利与环境权利等,不同的案例凸现不同的社会需求,因而需要彰显的价值目标亦各有区别。