检察监督过程中当事人诉权的保 障简

修订后的《民事诉讼法》第二百零九条规定了当事人向人民检察院提出申请检察建议和抗诉的程序,较之修订前的民事诉讼法有较大的进步且更加规范,是当事人维护自身权利的有力保障。民行检察部门应规范程序,完善制度建设,多举措并重,做到当事人息讼工作,以维护社会和谐稳定。     

合法性、商会治理与企业社会责任演化

文章以合法性为视角,对商会治理推动企业社会责任演化的传导机制和效应展开理论研究。在合法性机制下,行业内企业间社会责任的演化交互影响,特定企业为获取所需的合法性而采取企业社会责任行为时,必须因应行业内其他企业的社会责任行为而改变。企业将根据制度环境的变化,通过不断地主动调整对各类利益相关者承担的社会责任来动态地获取合法性。在现代商业社会里,商会是导致制度环境变化的重要因素。商会通过信息沟通,令特定企业根据新信息改变其关于其他企业社会责任行为的信念而调整其社会责任行为。商会治理推动企业社会责任的演化,其效应包括对企业社会责任边界、程度和结构的演化。现实中,商会治理推动企业社会责任演化的传导机制包括“学习与模仿”机制、集体行动机制和行业自律机制等。为使企业社会责任边界扩展、程度提高和结构趋于合理,应大力发展商会组织。若商会组织得到完善发展,就会促进企业社会责任的发展。     

跨国企业“失德”的法律规制研究

作为全球经济枢纽,跨国企业对于东道国经济发展与社会进步有着毋庸置疑的推动效用.伴随着发展中国家权利意识的觉醒与社会观念的普遍形成,跨国企业的负外部性逐渐凸显.近年来,在华跨国企业失德事件屡禁不止,这些事件折射出跨国企业社会责任意识的缺失以及相应法律规制的效果欠佳.跨国企业在社会影响力、行业控制力以及行业潜力方面有着自身的特殊性.从跨国企业的特殊性出发,寻找一条特殊的规制路径极为必要.现代政府规制理论提倡建立一种集体性规制与自我性规制相结合的规制方式.对于跨国企业来说,就是建立强有力的市场监管与社会责任规制相结合的双轨规制方式。     

Responsibility and National Memory: Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem

How are Israelis to incorporate the Palestinian refugee problem in their national memory? Scholarly historical accounts of the 1948 period can play an important role in this regard. Benny Morris's account allows them to take responsibility while maintaining the integrity of their national identity. Shabtai Teveth's account allows them to avoid responsibility, but at the cost of ignoring mountains of evidence. Nur Masalha's account in contrast, burdens them with a responsibility that jeopardizes their national bond. It is reasonable to expect them to adopt the first and reject the second, but it is unreasonable to expect them to adopt the third, irrespective of its scholarly merits.     

责任生成的道德内涵及其实现机制

责任是社会性个体间联结的内在基础，也是社会良性发展的道德基础。因此责任意识和责任能力就成为现时代人的社会化发展的重要内容。责任生成就成为青少年学生德性成长的基本任务，也成为学校道德教育的题中应有之义。责任生成是源于人的善的本性，是个体在不断地体验与他人、社会、自然和化的依存关系中发展的过程。学校德育应把握这一责任生成机制，在学校教育情境中。建立良性人际互动以使学生能够体验责任和培育起道德自觉，在激发责任感的同时培养责任能力。     

期待可能性理论与我国犯罪构成理论体系的重构

尽管在期待可能性理论的法律归属、地位和标准等方面还有纷争,但它已成为德、日等大陆法系刑法学界的通说,这是一个不争的事实。在大陆法系国家,期待可能性不仅是衡量犯罪成立与否的规格因素,而且具有减免责任之功效。社会转型期的我国倘若引入期待可能性理论,对现实许多疑难、争议案件可作出令人信服的阐释,有助于凸显我国刑法的谦抑性与制约国家刑罚权,并丰富我国的刑法理论和研究方法,当然,这会导致我国犯罪构成理论体系的重构。     

Understanding gender differences in distributive and procedural justice

Gender differences in treatment and in judgments of distributive and procedural justice were examined. Three hundred nine litigants who had been involved in arbitrated auto negligence lawsuits responded to exit surveys. Two mechanisms by which gender might influence justice perceptions were explored. First, we examined whether a “chivalry bias” might be operating, in which the procedures systematically favor women over men. If such biases occur, women might feel they had been treated more fairly because of egocentric biases. Results provided only modest support for the chivalry bias. While women received slightly better awards and perceived somewhat more control than men, these differences had no effect on perceptions of distributive or procedural justice. Second, we examined whether men and women differ systematically in the factors they use as indicators of distributive and procedural justice. On the basis of group-value theory we predicted that women might place more emphasis on standing or on outcome favorability. The study revealed that men and women did differ in how they defined distributive justice, with women placing more emphasis on their perceived standing and on their perceptions of the favorability of their outcomes. There were no substantial gender differences in how procedural justice was defined. Results are interpreted in terms of how women might be responding to insecurity about facing a justice system historically dominated by men. An erratum to this article is available at .     

论犯罪构成之主体要件不适格

刑事责任能力是指通过行为触犯刑法规范并承担刑事责任的资格。刑事责任能力内容包括犯罪能力和刑罚能 力。刑事责任能力是罪责的前提条件,先于犯罪行为存在。犯罪主体作为犯罪构成要件是不适格的,它不应该成 为犯罪构成要件。     

The Legal Position of the Married and Unmarried Father Under English and Dutch Law: Sharing Parenting or Just Going Dutch?

This article addresses the issue of the legal position of the married and unmarried father under English and Dutch law. The legal position under English Law in the UK for the married and unmarried father may be familiar to English family lawyers. The situation for unmarried fathers can be seen as more 'precarious' and less legally secure than that of the married father in terms of the legal recognition of fatherhood and the exercise of parental responsibility. Fathers who are not married to the mothers of their children are not recognised as 'fathers' in law in the same way as the married father. They will possess the automatic parental responsibility that the married father has, as a result of the implementation of new legislation which acts as a 'gateway' to the effective exercise, in legal terms, of 'fathering' activities. Whilst there have been some reforms, this are set in the context of problems and difficulties in regulating unmarried relationships in general. There is disparity in legal treatment between the married and the unmarried relationship, fatherhood in particular, but this distinction shows signs of diminishing, as it has done under Dutch law. In The Netherlands, as in a lot of other European countries, family law has been subject to continual law reforms, as a consequence of social developments. Also decisions of the European Court of Human Rights have forced the Dutch government to adapt legislation. Due to the equality principle, many benefits of marriage are now also granted to unmarried people. Since the extended law reform in 1998 the terms 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' child – for children born inside and outside of marriage – no longer exist. Instead the term 'family ties' was introduced. This article will discuss the major issues which concern the legal position of the married and the unmarried father under English and Dutch law.     

Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?

The attribution of responsibility to victims of bad fate (“blaming the victim”) is discussed under the perspective of Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis (Walster, 1966; Shaver, 1970). Whereas Just World Theory suggests that the belief in a just world is the decisive motive of increased attributions of responsibility, the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis assumes that these attributions are motivated by the need to believe in internal locus of control. Research evidence shows both motives as conceptually linked and empirically correlated. The central question is whether belief in a just world and belief in internal control are facets of the same latent variable or empirically distinguishable constructs, and whether they contribute independently to attributions of responsibility and blame to victims of misfortune. Results of a questionnaire study assessing opinions about cancer and cancer victims are reported. There is evidence from factor analyses that the two motives are indeed distinguishable constructs. The correlation patterns and the results of multiple regression analyses show that both motives are meaningfully related to attributions of responsibility. Moreover, it is suggested that belief in a just world is not a homogeneous construct. Belief in immanent justice according to which present misfortune is seen as a consequence of prior faults and sins is differentiated from belief in ultimate justice according to which one can be sure that present misfortune will be compensated in the long run. Whereas belief in immanent justice is the most important predictor for attributions of responsibility, the suggested emotional consequences of such attributions, like belief in invulnerability or confidence in coping, can be predicted by belief in internal control and belief in ultimate justice. Finally, suggestions are made to extend Just World Theory to clarify the function of justice motives in the person's search for meaning in his or her life.