实质诉讼法的“脱私入公”过程及其复兴意义 ——以温特沙伊德《当代法意识下的罗马私法之诉》的解读为主线

民事诉讼法是实质诉讼规范和诉讼程序规范之集合,但通说却将其同义于诉讼程序法而尘封实质诉讼法。从法律发达史上考察,实质诉讼法曾依附于实体私法体系,且与诉讼程序法长期处于分离状态,在脱离私法体系之后于民事诉讼法中找到了安身之处,并且在公法诉权说的推动下皈依了公法。在实质诉讼法脱私法体系而入诉讼法体系的发展过程中,温特沙伊德的《诉论》发挥了主要原动力作用,因而被奉为促成民事诉讼法走向独立化的“门罗宣言”。本文拟通过解读《诉论》,阐述实质诉讼法脱离私法体系而入公法的民事诉讼法之过程,恢复实质诉讼法的本来面目,以为我们克服民事诉讼法同于纯程序法之观念提供理论上的支撑。     

冒名顶替入学的行政法规制与权利救济

冒名顶替入学行为严重侵犯了被顶替者的受教育权,应当予以必要的规制与救济。但是,受行为性质认定的影响,现有的规制手段和权利救济仍面临程序规制不足、高校审查职责不明、赔偿责任缺失以及重新入学难以实现等诸多困境。基于此,有必要对招生录取行为的性质重新予以界定。通过细致的比较可以确定,招生录取的性质应是一种附延缓条件的行政许可。因此,需按照行政许可的控权逻辑对冒名顶替入学问题予以规制和救济。在规制手段上,高校招生权力行使须坚持有限信息公开、重要事项参与等程序规则,同时明确高校在不同阶段的审查职责,从源头减少冒名顶替行为的发生。在权利救济上,应明晰不同侵权主体的赔偿责任,并通过对重新入学的分析,保障被顶替者的受教育权。     

What Foster the Climate for Merit?: Test of a Mediation Model

ABSTRACT

The failure of performance management in the public sector can be conceived as the failure to create the right climate for merit. This study proposes a mediation model explaining howorganizational climate for merit can be fostered. The analysis of the 2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey reveals that constructive use of effective performance feedback and encouraging participation will help create a climate for merit and that such associations were mediated by organizational justice perception and trust toward their supervisor.     

The good of toleration: changing social relations or maximising individual freedom?

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I take issue with Peter Balint’s recent account of the value of toleration as an instrument for securing freedom-maximising outcomes in pluralistic societies. In particular, I question the extent to which the ideal of toleration can be entirely reduced to someone’s intentional withholding of negative interference whose value lies in the protection of individual negative freedoms. I argue that couching the value of toleration entirely in these freedom-maximising terms fails to do justice to the relational value of toleration. To see this value, we must also have in sight the drastic changes that appeals to toleration make to the nature of what goes on between the tolerator and the tolerated, not only to the state of affairs that is created by their relation.     

Exploring officer views of community policing in counterterrorism

Abstract

Recently there has been increased emphasis on actionable intelligence in counterterrorism. Building from the process-based model of regulation, police chiefs and scholars generally agree that community policing has promise in this regard. Yet, it is not clear the extent to which police officers concur. Since officers are in a position to implement community policing practices, it is important to understand variants in officer-level support. Using data collected from 741 officers in three departments, this project explores officer-level views of community policing’s utility to address terrorism and more common crimes. Overall, officers view community policing as appropriate to address both common crimes and terrorism. Results suggest that department-level policy itself is not the key driver of support. Rather, an officer’s own experience with community policing and support for the practice in general determine views on community policing in counterterrorism. Results also highlight the importance of comparative research across departments.     

Accommodating toleration: on Balint’s classical liberal response to the multiculturalism challenge

ABSTRACT

Peter Balint identifies three challenges to toleration, one of which is the multiculturalism challenge. This is the charge that liberal toleration fails to accommodate minorities adequately, which requires positive recognition rather than negative toleration. I discuss his response to the multiculturalism challenge and its connection to a classical liberal view of toleration. This involves Balint’s claim that liberal neutrality should be understood as reflective and ‘difference-sensitive’, which should be realised by the state being ‘hands-off’ in the sense of withdrawing support for privileged ways of life. I argue that Balint’s classical liberal view that the state needs to be ‘hands-off’ is in need of specification and that it does not fit well with his claim that neutrality needs to be reflective and difference-sensitive.     

Character-building and freedom in education

Educators, parents, and policy-makers in the United States, as in other countries, are concerned about the apparent inability of many schools to contribute to the development of character and civic virtue in their pupils. The answer, experience shows, is not for government to require a pedagogy of state-defined character education which, in a pluralistic society, would inevitably create new conflicts. Instead, education policy should take advantage of the growing interest on the part of educators in creating autonomous, distinctive schools, and the continuing interest, on the part of parents, in being able to choose what school their children will attend. Schools which exhibit a distinctive character based upon a shared understanding of the goals of education are effective not only in teaching academics but also in developing positive character traits in their pupils. Charter schools and educational vouchers are two means of encouraging and supporting such coherent schools. The article concludes with a series of policy recommendations designed to balance the autonomy of schools against the need for public accountability. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Justice and organizational punishment: Attitudinal outcomes of disciplinary events

This study utilized a justice framework to investigate punished subordinates' attitudinal reactions to specific disciplinary events. Results suggested that personality variables (negative affectivity and belief in a just world) influenced subordinate perceptions of the disciplinary event. In addition, belief in a just world had a direct effect on satisfaction with the supervisor, intention to leave, and organizational commitment. Contrary to expectations, harshness (a distributive aspect of the event) influenced perceptions of procedural justice and attitudes toward the institution (organizational commitment) and the leader (trust in supervisor), in addition to its influence on perceptions of distributive justice. The influence of procedural aspects of the event on attitudinal outcomes varied by dependent variable. The implications for future research and for management are discussed.     

Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes

The first phase of this study focused on the development of comprehensive, conceptually integrated measures of procedural and distributive justice in the context of family decision making. In the second phase, these measures were used to examine older adolescents' justice appraisals of specific family disputes and the relation of these justice appraisals to family systems functioning along dimensions of conflict and cohesion. A Family Justice Inventory was constructed, which included two global indices (one for procedural justice and one for outcome fairness) and 13 subscales: 9 measuring specific facets of the procedural justice construct and 4 measuring specific dimensions of the distributive justice construct. Factor analysis revealed that the 13 Family Justice Inventory subscales could be reduced to 5 interpretable procedural justice factors (personal respect, status recognition, process control, correction, and trust) and 4 interpretable distributive justice factors (decision control, need, equality, and equity). Using procedural justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, correction, and trust each accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, both decision control and need accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using both procedural and distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, and trust each accounted for unique variance in both family conflict and family cohesion. Additionally, equity also accounted for unique variance in family conflict but not family cohesion and the direction of the relationship was positive, that is, more equity in resolving specific family disputes was associated higher levels of general family conflict.