中国劳动教养立法专题理论研讨会综述

劳动教养是我国建设社会主义法治国家 ,推进公民权利和人权保护事业中的一个重要问题 ,特别是我国正式加入世贸组织后 ,在日益加强的国际人权对话和交流中 ,劳动教养的法治化成为一个刻不容缓的热点。对劳动教养立法的制度设计 ,需要从实体和程序两个基本方面进行系统、深入的理论研究。为此召开的中国劳动教养程序立法专题研讨会和实体立法专题研讨会 ,也是我国第一次劳动教养立法的专题理论会议。     

试论审前程序主体在侦查阶段之关系

审前程序犹如刑事诉讼整个大厦的地基 ,如果没有科学的、合理性的建构 ,之后的诉讼程序将难以为继。本文通过采用结构主义理论和比较研究的方法 ,就刑事审判前程序中的几个重要问题作了阐发和论证。总的目标是在侦查程序中构建中立司法机构的审查和控制机制 ,建立“程序性裁判”制度 ,使侦查程序中涉及限制人身权利和自由的行为纳入司法审查和诉讼的轨道 ,在惩罚犯罪和保护人权之间找到一个合乎理性的平衡点。     

城市房屋拆迁的合法性及补偿制度研究

城市房屋拆迁实质上是以国家权力为依托，被拆迁人和政府之间强制缔约的经济行为。由于我国法律规定不完善，城市房屋拆迁的前提即对公共利益的评判标准模糊。实际操作中，房屋拆迁的补偿原则、范围、标准以及补偿程序等一度引起人们的质疑和不满。当务之急是从城市房屋拆迁的现状和法学分析入手，通过对实践中房屋拆迁合法性的质疑，结合在城市房屋拆迁的实践中出现的问题力求对相关法律制度的完善提出立法建议。     

Why procedural justice in organizations?

This article reviews the existing research and theory on procedural justice and considers how it may be applied to the study of organizational behavior. It begins by distinguishing between the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice and noting the historical contexts within which they emerged. Existing conceptual contributions and the research inspired by them are reviewed. The few existing studies applying procedural justice notions to organizational contexts are summarized, and the contributions of the articles to the present issue of this journal are reviewed relative to these efforts. The article closes by discussing the dual benefits of studying procedural justice in organizations: the enhanced understanding of the concept of justice and the behavior of people in organizations.     

Focus of attention and locus of control as moderators of fraternal justice effects

The influence of a colleague's performance outcomes on individual's own subsequent performance was investigated. Internal and external locus of control subjects were given information about another person's outcome which indicated two things about organizational standards: how easy or difficult they were to meet and how stringently they were applied. An attentional focus manipulation was employed to influence how subjects used this information. Half of the subjects received a group-focus manipulation and the other half a self-focus one. We proposed that perceived difficulty of standards and stringency of application would interact with attentional focus and subject locus of control to alter subject's own subsequent performances. This expectation was supported by the data. Theoretical and applied implications of this result are discussed.     

Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems

In a variety of settings, procedures that permit predecision input by those affected by the decision in question have been found to have positive effects on fairness judgments, independent of the favorability of the decision. Two major models of the psychology of procedural justice make contrary predictions about whether repeated negative outcomes attenuate such input effects. If such attenuation occurs, it would lessen the applicability of procedural justice findings to some real-world settings, such as organizations, where procedures often provide repeated negative outcomes. The present laboratory investigation examined the procedural and distributive fairness justments produced by high- and low-input performance evaluation procedures under conditions of repeated negative outcomes. Thirty-five three-person groups of male undergraduates participated in a three-round competition. Groups either were or were not allowed to specify the relative weights to be given to two criteria used in evaluating their performance. All groups received negative outcomes on each of the three rounds. A second experimental factor varied whether or not the group learned after losing the second round that it could not possibly win the third and final round of the competition. Measures of procedural and distributive fairness showed that the high-input procedure led to judgments of greater procedural and distributive fairness across all three rounds. The input-based enhancement of fairness occurred regardless of whether reward was possible. The implications of these findings for theories of procedural justice and for applications of procedural justice to organizational settings are discussed.     

建立我国民事公益诉讼制度之探讨

传统的民事诉讼强调原告必须是纠纷的直接利害关系人，这种原告适格的理论使得许多涉及社会公共利益的民事纠纷得不到解决，其原因关键在于我国未建立民事公益诉讼制度，因而对民事公益诉讼的理论、实务进行探讨是必要的。     

法院改变罪名如何运作——兼与提出设置罪名改变通知程序的龙宗智先生讨教

对于法院能否改变罪名的问题学界和实务界争议教很大.龙宗智先生认为因为立法和司法解释已将判决改变罪名的权力明确赋予法院,固而法院改变罪名就不是法院有没有权力的问题,而是如何具体运作的问题,即是一个程序问,从而建言应设置一个罪名改变通知程序来进行具体运作并进一步论证了其合理和可行性.该程序具体运作由于庭审结构畸变导致法理上的不合理,条件上的不支撑,实践上的不可行,实效上的难如愿.对协商无效后作出无罪判决更为理性.     

举证时限制度的冷思考

在价值目标上,举证时限制度不仅偏离实体公正,而且不可能真正提高诉讼效率,同时也不能真正体现和实现程序正义.大陆法系国家几乎找不到类似中国举证时限的立法体例,英美法系国家有举证时限,但其是以陪审制和漫长、充分的证据开示为依托的,且设立举证时限、证据开示的真正目的不是在于提高效率,而是发现真实,破除"竞技论"的弊端.如果说我国的举证时限制度是属于外国制度的大胆引入,那么,忽视了其制度背景和功能实质的移植是难以达到立法目的的.