高校被诉引起的行政法思考

传统的社会组织划分方法已不能涵盖高校在当前的独特作用和行为性质。文章从现状的不尽如人意处着手,引入“第三部门”、“公务法人”等概念分析了高校独特的法律性质、地位,并建议建立教育行政救济制度,填补教育行政领域行政法治的空白。     

法人目的事业范围之检析

法人的行为界限如何 ,能否受目的事业范围限制 ,流行理论莫衷一是。本文在人格平等的基础上 ,分析了法人一般权利能力与目的事业范围的不同性质 ,并深入研讨了目的事业范围与法人权利能力、行为能力及法定经营(活动 )范围的关系 ,进而就合理构建法人行为界限制度提出自己的构想和立法建议。     

当事人权利与法官权力的均衡分配——兼论民事诉讼的本质

程序自由主义之局限要求在当事人与法院之间重新分配程序控制权。当事人自主与法官职权在程序控制中的动态均衡 ,决定了不同诉讼结构、模式及其功能的差异。本文以英国民事诉讼中法官的职权作为考察模型 ,通过分析英国法官在民事诉讼中职权的强化、构成及特点 ,阐明了有关对抗制诉讼及程序控制权的普遍性误认 ,并就法官职权强化意味着对抗制终结之主张提出质疑 ,揭示了二大诉讼模式自我修正、不断靠近的融合趋势 ,并初步论及民事诉讼的本质。     

Retributive and Restorative Justice

The emergence of restorative justice as an alternative model to Western, court-based criminal justice may have important implications for the psychology of justice. It is proposed that two different notions of justice affect responses to rule-breaking: restorative and retributive justice. Retributive justice essentially refers to the repair of justice through unilateral imposition of punishment, whereas restorative justice means the repair of justice through reaffirming a shared value-consensus in a bilateral process. Among the symbolic implications of transgressions, concerns about status and power are primarily related to retributive justice and concerns about shared values are primarily related to restorative justice. At the core of these processes, however, lies the parties’ construal of their identity relation, specifically whether or not respondents perceive to share an identity with the offender. The specific case of intergroup transgressions is discussed, as are implications for future research on restoring a sense of justice after rule-breaking.     

权力制衡与反腐败

产生腐败的一个重要原因是权力过分集中,为了防止腐败,必须进行权力制衡。用权力约束权力,建立良好选人用人机制,把好选人用人关口;压缩减少权力,对权力进行横向、纵向的分割,科学分解,合理制衡;对权力的运用过程进行透明公开,建立阳光行政的权力框架;建立完善的监督机制,对权力进行全方位的监督。     

也论许霆案的定性

许霆案的判决定性和量刑存在一定的问题,许霆的行为不符合秘密窃取的行为类型,以盗窃罪定性并不准确;许霆的行为是侵占遗忘物,应评价为侵占罪。许霆案的生效判决不但在定性上是不恰当的,而且即便假设许霆案可以认定为盗窃罪,其生效判决的量刑理由也存在一定的不合理之处。     

Regulatory disempowerment: How enabling and controlling forms of power obstruct citizen-based regulation

Regulatory studies assume that citizens can act as regulators to complement or correct failing state and market forms of regulation. Yet, there is a growing literature that shows that in reality citizens may fail to be effective regulators. This paper systematically analyses how power inequalities obstruct citizens in their regulatory roles. It compares four case studies with highly different social and political contexts but with similar outcomes of citizens failing to regulate risk. The case studies are analyzed by operationalizing sociological and political science ideas about manifestations of enabling and controlling forms of power in order to understand the way power inequalities obstruct citizens in their regulatory roles across diverse contexts. The article shows how citizens, from farmers and manual workers in both authoritarian developing and democratic developed contexts to even highly trained medical professionals from the US, have limited agency and are disempowered to act as regulators. Our analysis reveals that five patterns of disempowerment play a crucial role in obstructing successful society-based regulation: (i) dependency, (ii) capacity, (iii) social hierarchy, (iv) discursive framing, and (v) perverse effects of legal rights.     

对抗秘密取证:对质权属性及范围重述

就对质权的理论定位而言,学界一直莫衷一是:有功利主义视角下的工具论,亦有自由主义视角下的权利论,还有混合了两种主义的有限权利论。对于对质权应该坚持较为宽泛意义上的权利论,其首先应作为一项权利而存在,其次才是追求其他价值,例如发现真实。进而,对质权之于当事人应侧重程序性而非实体性保障。相应地,对质权的调整范围也应当作广义解释,即可以调整全部庭外陈述。当然,调整范围上的平等对待,并不意味着调整程度上的一视同仁。对质权的核心在于防止追诉方滥权,因此对属于证词性陈述(testimonial statements)应当由最为严厉的对质规则调整。对于非证词性庭外陈述,检察官可以在满足证人“无法寻获”的前提下,引入未经对质但可采的庭外陈述。     

论检察机关的宪法地位

文章针对当前我国检察机关的宪法地位问题，从对检察机关宪法地位的理解，存在问题和巩固职能等方面进行阐述，指出检察权的宪法地住与在实践中的弱化之间的矛盾，论证了检察机关宪法地位巩固与发展的途径。     

对职务犯罪案件审查逮捕程序改革与完善的思考

职务犯罪案件审查决定逮捕权"上提一级",是加强自身监督、规范检察权行使、促进检察工作科学发展的重要内容。改革后取得了强化监督的效果,但也暴露办案期限紧张、附条件逮捕缺乏法律依据、听取律师意见程序有待细化、不服逮捕缺乏救济等问题。因此有必要进行立法建言和制度改进,使改革措施落到实处,在惩治腐败与保障人权间寻求最佳平衡。