反倾销法的性质与演进之分析--从WTO竞争法设立的角度

反倾销法属于贸易法的范畴还是竞争法的范畴取决于对反倾销法的本质与功能的认识。从本质上来说,由于反倾销法是调整跨国竞争关系的法律规范,应属于竞争法的范畴,但由于它所具有的贸易保护主义的功用,又经常被认定为贸易法的组成部分。当经济的全球化发展要求在WTO框架下设立独立的竞争规则的时候,反倾销法应回归到竞争法中去,以利于国际竞争法整体规则的建立,并从根本上解决目前反倾销理论及运用中所产生的各种问题。     

TWO WORLDS FAR APART: BLACK‐WHITE DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS ABOUT WHY AFRICAN‐AMERICAN MEN ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPRISONED*

Analyzing The Washington Post, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University 2006 African American Survey, the current project focuses on three related issues. First, I examine whether African Americans and whites share a common “sensibility” or “cognitive landscape” when considering why African‐American men are disproportionately imprisoned. Second, the current research investigates whether the sensibilities held by African Americans and whites are collectively held. Third, I investigate whether the relative subordinate position of African Americans—as manifested in their personal experiences with racial discrimination—shapes the opinions that they have about why black men are disproportionately incarcerated. Findings reveal that African Americans and whites significantly differ in their opinions about why black men are imprisoned. They also show that deep divisions exist among whites, whereas African Americans tend to share a common sensibility as to why black males are disproportionately incarcerated. The results reveal that the cognitive landscape that African Americans collectively hold about why black men are incarcerated is shaped by their personal experiences with racial discrimination.     

刑事犯、行政犯统一化之提倡——兼论涉及行政法规范的犯罪的故意认定

区分刑事犯、行政犯的标准不具有可操作性，无论是以伦理道德的标准还是以生活秩序的标准，都无法明确划清二者的界限。区分刑事犯、行政犯是德日为解决本国立法背景下的特定问题而创制的理论，在我国当前的刑事立法模式下，区分二者并无现实意义。行政犯的故意成立原则上也不需要违法性认识，对刑事犯和行政犯在敌意的认识因素上应适用统一标准。     

殖民主义是根源——析《印度之行》

在一些人看来,《印度之行》中的英国殖民者和印度人民之间存在着一条几乎无法逾越的鸿沟,这是由于英国人缺乏同情心,缺乏想象力和印度人的善意、真诚而缺乏实际能力的精神状态之间的矛盾所造成的。本文不赞同这一观点。笔者认为:两者之间的矛盾根源于英国的殖民主义和由此产生的种族歧视。     

英国反就业歧视制度及实践研究

英国习惯法并不禁止歧视行为,但随着英国加入各种国际组织及国内平权运动的高涨,在20世纪70年代后,英国对于禁止性别、残疾、年龄等制定了大量的法律。当前英国反就业歧视的法律渊源主要包括:欧盟立法和专门性法律。这些法律中就有关就业歧视的违法行为进行了详尽和周密的规定,包括直接歧视、间接歧视、骚扰和受害等四种歧视形态,禁止在雇佣关系中各个阶段的任何歧视。为了有效地防止就业歧视,英国依据《平等法》成立了人权与平等机会委员会。平等机会委员会在应对英国社会中相对突出的就业歧视问题扮演了重要角色。     

FAMILY CARE COMMITMENT DISCRIMINATION: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN WORK AND FAMILY

This Note discusses the pervasive problem of employment discrimination based on family responsibilities, or family care commitment discrimination. Employees with family care commitments often find themselves being pulled in opposing directions—between work and family. When an employee is forced to choose work, for financial reasons, over family, his or her family ends up suffering. The current state and federal statutes aimed at employment discrimination are insufficient to deal with family care commitment discrimination. This Note proposes a change to the current legislation and explains how this change will protect employees and families, while causing employers to internalize externalities by adopting more family‐friendly policies.     

“危害国防利益罪”中的若干概念辨析

新修订的《刑法》增设了一章“危害国防利益罪”。但该章中对于若干犯罪主体的概念：“军人”、“战时”、“破坏军事通信罪”、“公民”等未作严密科学的界定，给法律的适用带来一定的影响。“军人”按照《中国人民解放军军语》的解释，应指具有“军籍”的人；严格、准确的“战时”是指“国家宣布进入战争状态，部队受领作战任务或遭敌袭击时”。“部队执行戒严任务或处置突发性暴力事件时”，以“战时论”，适用于刑法分则第十章，其余各章，凡涉及“战时”规定的，应只适应刑法第４５１条第一款规定的诸种情况，而不宜扩大解释；关于“破坏军事通信罪”，其犯罪主体应包括“物”和“活动”两种形式，如果是“物”，理应包含于武器装备、军事设施之内，罪名不好确定。如果是“活动”，其罪刑设计就会出现遗漏，有必要对刑法第３６９条加以改造和补充。“公民”应指服现役和服预备役的公民     

制度性歧视与平等权利保障机构的功能——以农民权利保障为视角

制度性歧视是指由国家的正式规则所形成或被国家的正式规则所接受和保护的歧视。城市化进程中针对农民的歧视性制度安排,主要表现在经济和社会领域。具体可分为如下几类:户籍制度;农地征用制度;社会保障制度;教育制度;就业制度等。上述歧视性的制度安排严重侵犯了农民财产权、劳动权、获得物质帮助权、教育权等基本的宪法权利。通过立法的方式建立专门的以反歧视为目的的平等权利保障机构或职能更宽泛的人权保障机构,既是国际人权法所倡导的,在世界上许多国家以及我国的香港地区已有成功的实践经验。平等权利保障机构就其功能而言,适合于以大多数农民为代表的弱势群体的生存状态和权利诉求。     

我国农民工就业歧视问题的心理学解释

农民工在城市就业所遭遇的歧视可以从心理学的角度进行剖析。歧视源于偏见,偏见产生的原因在于社会群体的利害冲突、社会化、个体人格和心理因素,偏见会产生预言的自我实现和疏离。要想消除偏见必须消除刻板印象、增加平等的接触并树立共同命运的意识,而且要制定有助于消除偏见的社会规范。     

Cognitive limitations and affirmative action: The effects of aggregate versus sequential data in the perception of discrimination

The present experiment examined whether or not relatively simple cognitive and information-processing limitations may prevent us from recognizing instances of organizational discrimination. It was hypothesized that the perception of discrimination would be more difficult when the relevant information had been presented in a case-by-case basis rather than in aggregate format. The obtained results provided strong support for the original hypothesis. Subjects who had been presented with company data in aggregate format provided significantly higher ratings of discrimination than those subjects for whom the information had been presented in sequential form. The implications of these findings to the policy of affirmative action are also discussed.