Why preferences and institutions change: A systematic process analysis of credit rating in Germany

This article argues that a within‐case analysis of the causes and patterns of the institutionalisation of rating in the German financial system offers fresh insights into change in the major socioeconomic institutions of advanced capitalism. Using the method of systematic process analysis, the article explores the expansion of credit rating in the German banking system from three perspectives: historical (power), sociological (diffusion) and behavioural institutionalism (prospect theory). It demonstrates that the proliferation of credit rating resulted from a change of preference on the part of large banks. With Germany as a least likely case for successfully implementing rating, the study's main lesson is that institutional analysis may benefit from incorporating behavioural institutionalism into the analysis of preference change because this cites economic motivations as causes of preference shifts and institutional changes.     

论循证矫正效果评价机制的构建

评估/评价问题始终是现当代监狱发展的重要领域之一。没有对于矫正对象在刑事干预前后的准确评估/评价,我们根本不可能获得"何为有效"的重要信息。在现代统计科学、信息科学和实证主义的影响下,罪犯评估问题、社区矫正对象以及其他矫正对象的评估/评价一直是确保相关实务工作科学高效运作的基础。在循证矫正的构建和推行中,有必要明确评估/评价理论和机制的地位作用,以达到对矫正干预措施和矫正机制运作状况的充分了解,从而在符合"评估相关过程与业务"的原则下有序开展矫正实践工作。     

Study on the Consensus Issue of the Criminal Procedure Law and the Supervision System

The reform of the supervision system raises the consensus issue of the Supervision Law and the Criminal Procedure Law. The convergence of the two laws cannot be achieved only by the technical connection and synergy, but also by dissolving the inner conflicts of the litigation values. For one thing, the Supervision Law lays stress on the “Criminal Control Value” of the criminal justice; for another, the Criminal Procedure Law strives to attach equal importance to both “Combating Crime” and “Protecting Human Rights”. Because of the conflicting schemes of values which are possessed by the two laws separately, the convergence of the processes becomes complex, which contains the distinction between criminal “investigation” and supervising “survey”, the jurisdiction of the duty crime cases, the conversion of the coercive measures, the process of returning a case for supplementary survey, and the pleading guilty procedure for a lenient punishment, etc. For the political effect, “adopting severe punishment in trouble times” can play an important role in the short term, which may establish the atmosphere that no one dare to commit corruption crimes. But a system of both “Combating Crime” and“Protecting Human Rights” is the long-term solution, which lays the emphasis on both the sustainability and the due process of the anti-corruption in China.     

Civil Society and Peace Negotiations: Beyond the Inclusion–Exclusion Dichotomy

Civil society is generally seen as an important actor in peace processes. But when it comes to reaching an agreement during peace negotiations, much of the current debate is centered on the question of including or excluding civil society. Although most researchers argue that civil society participation makes the process more sustainable and democratic, most practitioners emphasize that enhanced civil society participation makes it more difficult to reach a peace agreement. I argue that practitioners and theorists must both move beyond this dichotomy and, instead, focus on the variety of ways in which civil society actors can be included in a given negotiation process. To this end, I present in this article a comprehensive overview of nine models of inclusion, from most to least direct involvement of civil society, supported by illustrative case studies. Analysis of these models suggests that it will be possible to broaden the participation of civil society in peace negotiations without decreasing the negotiations' effectiveness.     

《〈民事诉讼法〉修改决定》评析——兼论我国《民事诉讼法》的修改

《民事诉讼法》修改是众望所归的事,但以《〈民事诉讼法〉修改决定》的形式通过却有点出乎大家的意料。《〈民事诉讼法〉修改决定》有其创新之处,但其暴露的不足也是显而易见的。应当尽快启动对《民事诉讼法》的全面修改程序,将其打造成一部既有前瞻性又有特色的能很好服务于民事诉讼的法律。     

我国审前准备程序的现状及改革构想

审前准备程序是法院受理案件开庭审理之前所进行的全部诉讼活动,以当事人整理争点和收集证据为主要内容,其在保证诉讼公正、提高诉讼效益、维护程序安定等方面都具有相当积极的意义,在民事诉讼活动中发挥着越来越重要的作用。我国目前的审前程序实际上仍然局限于仅为法官审理案件提供准备的狭隘范围内,其弊端已经开始逐步显露出来,改革势在必行。     

清末检察官回避制度探究

光绪三十二年（1906年）,清廷颁行《大理院审判编制法》,正式确立了检察制度。为了保证检察厅能公正执法,清政府于宣统二年（1910年）颁行《法官分发章程》,制定了检察官任职地域回避制度,不再坚持本省本管籍回避之旧制。尽管《大清刑事诉讼律草案》未能以法律的形式正式颁行,但其规定了较为完备的诉讼履职过程中的检察官回避制度,比较科学地设置了检察官回避的法定事由。     

六十年公民政治权利宪政历程的回顾与思考

中华人民共和国成立,实现了人民当家作主的政治制度,但是公民政治权利的发展经历了一个曲折的过程。我国公民政治权利的发展呈现主体矫变、内容衍变以及实践方式巨变的历史特征,透视出社会主义民主政治建设的公民政治权利诉求。     

刑事审前法官制度的中国语境分析

刑事审前法官制度的缺位,不仅导致我国侦查程序中非法侦查行为屡禁不止,权利救济机制处于空白状态,侦查程序不具诉讼形态,也使得公诉权缺乏应有的控制,公诉方式改革未能达到预期的效果。还造成庭前程序中非法证据排除规则不能落实,证据展示程序难以运行,庭审法官的预断不能排除。加强权力制约与保障人权,必须建立司法审查制度、设立刑事审前法官．     

Strategy of Chinese policy entrepreneurs in the third sector: challenges of “Technical Infeasibility”

Studies of policy entrepreneurs have become a staple of public policy research. Very few such studies deal with the circumstances of China. This paper aims to remedy this oversight by exploring the mechanisms of policy change in China. Using John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams (MS) Model, the author develops the “Technical Infeasibility Model.” The paper tests the MS model’s applicability to China by examining strategies put forth by Chinese policy entrepreneurs in the third sector. It considers how they may successfully promote change by using a strategy of proposing a relatively radical policy concept that is politically acceptable and technically infeasible to policy makers. To illustrate such a strategy, this paper considers a case of policy change involving Chinese urban vagrants. The policy on “Detention and Repatriation,” which was first implemented in 1982, was challenged following the Sun Zhigang Incident in March 2003. Shortly thereafter law scholars filed two suggestion letters to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee calling for a constitutionality review of the Detention and Repatriation System. Though it was “technically infeasible” to air such a proposal in China at that time, the State Council initiated action to abolish certain provisions of the Detention and Repatriation System. However, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee did not conduct a constitutionality review.