对修改后的《民事诉讼法》中公益诉讼制度的理解

本次修改民事诉讼法建立公益诉讼制度,主要是为了解决以下问题：一是随着环境污染、消费者权益保护等涉及社会公共利益问题日益突出,社会各界呼吁建立公益诉讼制度,而现行《民事诉讼法》第108条对原告主体资格限定为与本案有直接利害关系的公民、法人和其他组织,人民法院受理公益诉讼存在法律障碍;二是部分实体法对原告主体资格作出扩张性规定,如《海洋环境保护法》第90条规定海洋监督管理部门可以代表国家对责任者提起损害赔偿诉讼,但程序法规定的缺失,导致诉讼救济渠道不畅、法律保护不力,且存在着法律之间不够协调等问题。但是,基于我国国情,目前立法不宜走得过急,而应先集中解决制约公益诉讼开展的起诉条件问题,即设定公益诉讼的案件范围和确定提起公益诉讼的主体资格。至于公益诉讼的其他问题,留待以后总结经验后再逐步作出规定。     

被害人独立诉讼主体地位的回归

原始的刑事自诉模式下,被害人为刑事诉讼的主体之一。但在漫长的中世纪,被害人陷入证人的境地,国家成为唯一的诉讼主体。当代,虽然被害人普遍地被当作刑事诉讼的当事人,但是并不具有独立的诉讼主体地位,所以传统的刑事诉讼结构一直没有被害人的一席之地。现代刑事诉讼制度应当恢复刑事被害人的诉讼主体地位,并设计相应的制度充分保障刑事被害人诉讼主体地位的实现。     

Measuring Procedural Justice in Police-Citizen Encounters

Procedural justice has dominated recent discussions of police interactions with the public. It has mostly been measured from the perspective of citizens (using surveys or interviews), but several important questions about predictors and outcomes of fair police treatment are best answered using direct observations of police-citizen interactions. Building on prior observational studies, we develop and validate an instrument for measuring procedural justice as it is exercised by the police in the natural setting of their encounters with the public. In doing so, we adopt a “formative” rather than the common “reflective” approach, based on the assumption that specific behaviors that make up procedural justice do not reflect a single underlying construct but rather form one. We justify this approach and validate our instrument accordingly. We also discuss the implications of our measurement for future research on procedural justice in police behavior.     

论公民权利对行政调查权的制约

由于行政调查权的广泛性、多样性和程序性等特点,使得传统的、以权力制约权力的控权机制不足以对其实行有效控制,因此,有必要辅以权利制约机制。本文试图探讨通过合理配置公民的实体权利和程序权利,以实现对行政调查权全方位、多角度的有效制约。     

对"扑克牌通缉令"的思考

发布通缉令是公安机关为了缉拿依法应当逮捕但在逃的犯罪嫌疑人的特殊命令.美国军队在伊拉克战争中将通缉令和扑克牌有机的联系了起来,这一做法被河南省荥阳市的公安部门所吸收,发布了我国国内第一套"扑克牌通缉令".但是这一套"扑克牌通缉令"在形式合法性、空间局限性和实效有限性上都存在着问题,使其不能符合"法治精神"的要求.这一改革存在的弊端再一次暴露出我国公安机关在刑事侦查活动中"重实体、轻程序"的旧观念.     

Procedural justice in mental health court: an investigation of the relation of perception of procedural justice to non-adherence and termination

Mental health courts (MHCs) operate on the principles of procedural justice (PJ). PJ highlights the importance of process over outcomes in encounters with authority. Subjective perceptions of having voice, being heard by decision-makers, and being treated with respect and concern by figures of authority are influential in assessment of fairness and in cooperation with decisions, regardless of favorability of the outcome. In this paper, we investigate MHC participant perception of PJ in interactions with MHC staff and the association between perceptions and recidivism (i.e. time in jail, new arrests, and probation violations), treatment adherence, and MHC termination. Participants from two MHC programs (n?=?80) took part in this study. Results suggest that perception of PJ during interactions with the entire MHC team is significantly associated with program termination, but not with participant behaviors during MHC. Implications for MHC practitioners and researchers are discussed.     

Procedural justice,minorities, and religiosity

The current research explores six hypotheses derived from the well-known procedural justice-based model of legitimacy in two different religious groups in Israel, and adds to the model the effect of religiosity on the perceived legitimacy of rules and institutions of social control. Our results, based on data from a representative sample of 1,216 Israeli Jews and Arabs, provide general support for the hypotheses. We found that the social order is perceived as less legitimate by the Arab minority compared with the Jewish majority, and by highly religious members of the Jewish majority compared with those who are less religious.     

论行政协议中行政机关救济 途径行使程序之完善

2015年我国《行政诉讼法》将行政协议的概念进行了明确并规定就行政协议有关问题可以提起行政诉讼,此举表明行政协议已经在实践中得到普遍运用,需要法律加以规定。我国的行政诉讼法律体系也因此得到进一步完善,但由于我国强行政权的历史传统,立法上的重点过于偏向对协议相对人的保护,而对于行政机关的救济途径规定甚少。2019年出台的《最高人民法院关于审理行政协议案件若干问题的规定》就这一问题进行了解决,其通过赋予行政机关申请法院强制执行的权利作为满足行政协议履行过程中的必要条件下的救济途径,这一救济途径与行政协议中相对人享有的救济途径具有某种程度上的一致性,有效保证了协议双方当事人的相对平等,但仍有必要完善行政机关主体司法救济权利的程序规定。     

Turning defiance into compliance with procedural justice: Understanding reactions to regulatory encounters through motivational posturing

This paper uses Braithwaite's motivational posturing framework to explain how individuals react to encounters with regulatory authorities. Of interest is whether procedural justice can reduce defiance and improve self‐reported compliance among individuals who are either resistant or dismissive of regulatory authority. Using longitudinal survey data collected from tax offenders (Study 1), and individuals who had a recent police‐citizen interaction (Study 2), it will be shown that procedural justice can promote compliance behavior. Procedural justice is also found to be effective for reducing resistant forms of defiance over time, but not dismissive defiance. Further, the results reveal that neither resistant defiance nor dismissive defiance moderate the effect of procedural justice on compliance, suggesting procedural justice works equally well for both low and high resisters and low and high disengagers. Finally, an unexpected result reveals that resistance, but not dismissive defiance, mediates the effect of procedural justice on self‐reported compliance behavior. The findings have implications for procedural justice research and for the regulation of defiance.