论国际海上货物运输领域中的首要义务

对首要义务进行界定,指出首要义务是合同义务群中的主给付义务,是即使存在不负责事项时仍被考量是否有效履行的义务。分析和评价国际海上货物运输合同领域中关于首要义务的争论,指出目前海商法学界关于首要义务的讨论仍处于讨论主题不明确的状态,这是由国际海上货物运输合同自身特征所决定的。为方便相关纠纷解决,建议参照《日本国际海上货物运输法》《1990年韩国商法典》等的规定,直接在法律中明确首要义务的规定。     

中部崛起战略下的区域政策与经济增长实证研究

中部崛起战略是继东部沿海开放、西部大开放后国家实施的第三个重大区域战略，如何评价其实施效果是关系到下一步国家政策调整的关键。该文构建了一个包括解释变量、虚拟变量和控制变量组成的实证分析模型，对政策是否影响经济增长及影响程度进行了评价，并根据评价结果提出了提升中部经济增长的政策路径。     

海峡西岸经济区金融支持经济发展的实证研究

本文实证检验了以福建省为主体的海峡西岸经济区金融发展与经济增长之间的关系。首先从金融体系的总量、市场化程度、效率三方面考察了福建省金融发展水平;随后用时间序列模型对90年代以来福建省金融支持经济发展的作用进行了回归分析,并得到了相关结论。     

开放经济条件下发展中地区的区域创新系统——基于长江三角洲地区的比较研究

改革开放以来,长江三角洲地区的高速发展在一定程度上得益于其各具特色的区域创新系统。在开放经济条件下,区域创新系统可以有不同的模式,但应注意,要促进相互间具有高效、有机联系的创新主体的成长,积极利用区域的内部和外部资源,高度重视地区性的产业集聚,根据本地的实际构建与周边地区相协调的开放式的区域创新系统。     

少数民族地区大调解机制运行的现实困境及思考——以新疆喀什地区为研究样本

大调解机制是维护社会稳定、消解矛盾纠纷的重要机制和社会救济的主要形式,也符合世界各国非诉讼解决方式蓬勃发展的趋势。以喀什地区为样本,结合其社会转型背景,考察大调解机制在喀什地区运行中的种种困境,为焕发大调解机制的生命力,使之在少数民族地区有效运行,提出了社会稳定风险评估机制亟待从粗放走向规范、设计相应制度,发挥传统的家庭调解和宗教爱国人士参与调解的优势、推行和规范基层的诉讼调解点制度、不断扩大诉讼调解范围、模糊看待"事实清楚,分清是非"在诉讼调解中的适用等建议。     

台湾地区社区建设政策的制度变迁

上世纪90年代,台湾地区开始以"自下而上"的社区建设体制替代它实行了近30年的"自上而下"社区建设体制。它主要体现在:在制度设计方面引入了"社区导向",在制度执行方面重视"基层政府"和社区的作用,而在执行过程中引入了"自下而上申请专案"的机制。纵观台湾地区社区建设实践,可以看到:台湾地区社区建设自始至终贯穿着官方"改造社会战略"的意志;在"公民社会"未经建成基础上推动的社区建设体制所主张的"自下而上"模式不得不借由"自上而下"的行政干预方式推动,这为社区主义的扩展提供了空间,因而其社区建设政策转轨呈现出"柔性强制+示范诱致"的变迁特征。台湾地区推动社区主义虽然是深嵌于其特有的政治社会生态,但其主动推动的姿态以及培育和辅导民间组织的积极作为,尤其值得借鉴。     

陕甘宁边区对刑事被告人权利保护的立法略论

陕甘宁边区政府时期的立法，不仅注意保护一般人权，对于刑事被告人的宪法性权利、诉讼权利也给予较为全面的保障。这一系列立法规定，维护了边区司法的严肃和公正，表现了革命立法的人道主义，也代表了边区政府立法的民主和进步。     

谈环渤海区域经济发展中的软环境建设

环渤海区域经济发展软环境的好坏,决定着经济发展的速度和质量。环渤海区域各省、市应下力气抓好本区域经济发展的软环境建设,在区域经济竞争中创造凝聚力、形成吸引力、提高生产力,推动环渤海区域经济快速发展。     

Beyond elections: perceptions of democracy in four Arab countries

This article draws on public opinion survey data from Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan to investigate first, whether a “demand for democracy” in the region exists; second, how to measure it; and third, how respondents understand it. The picture emerging from this analysis is complex, eluding the simple dichotomy between prima facie support and second order incongruence with democracy, which characterises current debates. Respondents have a more holistic understanding of democracy than is found in current scholarship or indeed pursued by Western or regional policymakers, valuing civil-political rights but prioritizing socio-economic rights. There is broad consensus behind principles of gender equality, but indirect questions reveal the continuing influence of conservative and patriarchal attitudes. Respondents value religion, but do not trust religious leaders or want them to meddle in elections or government. Moreover, while there is broad support for conventionally-understood pillars of liberal democracy (free elections, a parliamentary system), there is also a significant gap between those who support democracy as the best political system in principle and those who also believe it is actually suitable for their country.     

Studying a negative external actor: Russia's management of stability and instability in the ‘Near Abroad’

The literature on transition and democratization was for long dominated by internal explanatory factors such as economic performance, civil society, institutions, etc. Only recently have external actors' democratizing efforts – like those of the US and the EU – been systematically incorporated. But the perspective remains too constrained, since only ‘positive’ external actors are considered, while possible ‘negative’ actors are left aside. This article attempts to rectify some of the imbalance. First, an analytical framework that can be used to analyse both positive and negative external actors is proposed. Then, the framework is put into use through an analysis of the negative effects of Russia's foreign policy in the so-called ‘Near Abroad’. It is argued that two general effects take shape: the ‘policy of managed stability’ and the ‘policy of managed instability’. Both are weakening the democratic perspectives in the post-Soviet area, so I argue that Russia's foreign policy in the ‘Near Abroad’ is a, hitherto, underestimated and badly understood ‘negative’ factor in the literature on transition and democratization in the post-Soviet space.