证券侵权诉讼中的代表人诉讼制度缺陷及完善途径

证券民事诉讼案件的特点,决定了证券民事诉讼宜使用群体诉讼方式,随着我国市场经济的逐步健全完善,证券侵权群体性纠纷案件的不断出现,我国证券侵权诉讼中的代表人诉讼制度的缺点突显,本文通过代表人诉讼制度与美国集团诉讼制度的比较,旨在建议对我国相关立法进行完善,吸纳美国集团诉讼制度的优势,完善我国证券群体诉讼制度。     

Public Law Litigation: Lessons and Questions

The practice of using courts to foster social change, once confined to the USA, has emerged as a worldwide phenomenon. Foreign practice reflects indigenous forms but faces criticisms similar to that in the USA: that it is ineffective, antidemocratic, and counterproductive. The essay meets these criticisms, first, by recasting US public law litigation as a form of politics that challenges the status quo by forging alliances, changing discursive frames, and disciplining private and public decision making. Looking abroad, the essay emphasizes public law litigation as a meditative institution that facilitates political action and aids in regulatory enforcement where administrative mechanisms are weak or regulation requires ongoing elaboration. Finally, the essay suggests that criticisms of public law litigation tend to neglect three factors: the actual and not assumed comparative advantages of different institutional actors, the role of temporal conditions in affecting social change, and the ubiquity of complex, not dichotomous, relations.

From corporatism to lawyocracy? On liberalization and juridification

In 1997 Robert Kagan questioned whether European countries had to fear the coming of American style adversarial legalism. He answered this question with a qualified “no.” Today we are no longer so sure the answer is “no,” even in a country that Kagan considered the antipole of US adversarial legalism, the Netherlands, traditionally characterized by informal and consensual conflict resolution. In the present article we chart a trend of increasing juridification and legalism, that is, more formal and legal conflict resolution, in the Netherlands between 1970 and 2008. The trend is related to major changes in economic governance institutions, which generated a shift from corporatism toward lawyocracy; from power of the associations of civil society toward power of courts, lawyers, and judges. Yet the newly dominant system of governance is modified and merged with elements of the old system, producing a specific Dutch version, which one could call “corporatist lawyocracy.” We identify two types of liberalization as major driving forces: social liberalization in the 1970s and 1980s, followed by economic liberalization in the subsequent decades. If one considers economic liberalization a product of neoliberal “Reaganomics,” the legal changes are in a way an “American export product,” although a different one than the lawyering styles of large international American law firms mentioned by Kelemen and Sibbitt in 2004.     

European elites and the narrative of the Greek crisis: A discursive institutionalist analysis

This article examines elite European discourses during the Greek financial crisis from its pre-history in September 2008 up to the arrival of the SYRIZA government in January 2015. The article employs the conceptual literature on Discursive Institutionalism (DI) and Historical Institutionalism (HI). Having coded 1,153 unique quotes drawn from a dataset of 15,354 news wires from Reuters, the authors argue that the communicative discourse of 63 senior European (and IMF) officials on the Greek crisis during that period demonstrates significant volatility. Four distinct narrative frames are identified: ‘neglect’, ‘suspicious cooperation’, ‘blame’ and ‘reluctant redemption’, punctuated by three discursive junctures in 2010, 2011 and 2012, which reflect the content of the changing communicative discourse of the Greek crisis. The article's contribution is twofold: empirically, it is the first to provide a systematic analysis of the protagonists’ communication of the Greek crisis; and theoretically, it combines DI and HI in an effort to conceptualise an important part of our understanding of ‘bail-out politics’ throughout the Eurozone crisis.     

防范和规制虚假司法确认

司法确认制度,是随着诉调衔接机制改革的不断深入而发展起来。在多元化纠纷解决的背景下,其具有重要的理论价值和现实意义。然而在我国司法实践中,申请人的不诚信以及法院对司法确认案件进行形式审查等因素诱发该制度运营的偏差,出现虚假司法确认。在新民事诉讼法修改完善的背景下,通过分析虚假司法确认的发生原因,并从申请人、法院、社会多维度提出对虚假司法确认的防范机制,进而于制度关联间寻求最佳救济方案,最后在重新审视司法确认功能的基础上,将其予以系统定位。     

当代中国法治话语体系的构建

近十余年来,社会各方面对中国法治的应有形态及理想图景认识出现了一定分歧。形成这种分歧的实质原因是,在"什么是法治"的问题上,人们更多地受到西方自由主义法治理论的影响。自由主义法治理论所建构的法治模式以及所描绘的法治的某些特征,一定程度上已成为人们对于法治的深刻记忆,并成为认知和评判我国法治现实的依据。为此,应当在充分揭示和深刻认知自由主义法治理论乖谬的基础上,加强我国法治意识形态的自主化建设,以社会主义法治理念为基础构建中国特色法治话语体系。在此过程中,应注重社会主义法治理念与法学传统理论及知识谱系的对接,把社会主义法治理念转化或体现为具体的法律思想、法学理论、法律原理、法律文化、法律知识以及法律思维,藉以确立社会主义法治理念作为我国法治的"元理论"和"元知识"的权威地位。     

司法判决中的正当程序原则

在法律、法规和规章对行政机关应当遵循的程序没有明确规定的情况下,法院能否根据正当程序原则去审查行政行为的合法性,是观察当前中国司法的实际职能和法律发展的一个窗口。通过统计《人民法院案例选》上行政判决所用的法律依据,分析田永案件、刘燕文案件、张成银案件等十余个有关行政程序的代表性案例,结合对法官所做的访谈,可以发现,在过去十多年中,正当程序原则在司法审查中获得了比较广泛的认可,开始成为中国法律的一部分。这一事实显示了中国法院在相对局促的空间里的能动主义立场,以及由个案判决所推动的一种法律发展的特殊路径。     

英美国家诉讼限制令对我国虚假诉讼治理的启示

目前我国虚假诉讼司法治理机制存在规制手段相对单调、惩治机制长效性有限、治理理念局部轻重失衡等问题。为解决前述问题,贯彻宽严相济政策,鉴于法治精神和基本原理的互通性与传导性,英美国家诉讼限制令制度可为我国提供有益参考。“诉讼限制令”本质上是一种必要惩戒与诉讼风险防范化解机制,仅在原自由起诉模式下,“嵌入”法院对诉讼黑名单人员再起诉的必要、合理审查许可要求,其余流程与规则不变,彰显民事诉讼国家干预理念,有助于实现社会公共利益与个人利益、自由起诉与诉讼风险管控之间的协调平衡。诉讼限制令制度本身也存在丰富的适用层级与梯度,在引入我国时应保持与既有惩戒惩罚机制的合理衔接。     

论公司股东诉讼中的若干问题

股东诉讼是公司法律制度的重要组成部分。修订后的公司法规定了有限责任公司和股份有限公司的股东诉讼制度,从而全面启动了以股东直接诉讼和股东间接诉讼为基本内容的股东诉讼制度,这对健全股东合法权益是十分必要的。鉴于我国当前实际情况,应当鼓励股东积极行使诉权,解决好当事人诉讼适格问题、股东间接诉讼的管辖问题、股东直接诉讼中证明责任之分配问题、股东间接诉讼的前置程序和司法审查问题、股东诉讼的费用担保问题等,从而真正实现股东的诉讼权利。     

霸权衰落与“泛安全化”：基于美国的个案分析

衰落是霸权的宿命,但霸权国既不会主动放弃国际政治中的主导地位,也不会静待霸权体系崩溃。处于衰落阶段的霸权国期待维持与崛起国之间的权力差距,以延长霸权的寿命。然而,权力转移等国际关系结构性因素的变化导致离岸平衡和军事打击等传统手段难以在衰落阶段奏效。相比之下,“安全化”为霸权国家的霸权护持行动与选择——如领域撤退或强制惩罚——提供了合法性依据。同时,由于霸权的同心圆特性,核心利益被触动会引发霸权国在核心和外围领域的全方位的打压,进而泛化议题和对象。衰落中的霸权国通过“危机感知”—“构建并接受安全化诉求”—“泛安全化”的传导路径,将维持霸权地位的诉求以泛安全化的形式展现出来。然而,美国霸权衰落的经验事实表明,泛安全化作为衰落阶段的霸权护持手段不仅与理论预期相反,而且成效也不尽人意。面对美国霸权的泛安全化,中国应当保持战略定力,坚守并贯彻总体国家安全观。