State intervention and neoliberalism in the globalizing world economy: lessons from Singapore's regionalization programme

The recent 1997-98 Asian economic crisis has thrown Asia's divergent pathways to development into serious question. Protagonists of neoliberalism argue that their agenda is now becoming a global orthodoxy when several ailing Asian economies have accepted IMF packages which come with neoliberal economic programmes. Drawing on lessons from Singapore's regionalization programme, this article contends that it is far too early to conclude that Asian developmental states are giving up their governance of domestic economies. Instead, there is evidence that these Asian developmental states are re-regulating their domestic economies to ride out of the economic crisis. The article first starts with the debate between neoliberalism and state developmentalism in our understanding of global political economy. It then examines the political economy of Singapore's regionalization programme through which Singapore-based transnational corporations are strongly encouraged by the state to regionalize their operations, followed by a critical discussion of the impact of the recent Asian economic crisis on the re-regulation of the regionalization programme by the state in Singapore. Some lessons for Asian emerging economies are suggested in the concluding section.     

The Space of Civil Society and the Practices of Resistance and Subordination

Abstract

We argue that the majority of civil society conceptualizations employ a narrow concept of the state and a narrow concept of civil society. The life history of a Brazilian woman demonstrates that as individuals travel through state institutions and civil society organizations (CSOs), they carry conflicting worldviews with them which bear on the practices of CSOs. With Gramsci we recognize civil society as a space where movements and the state struggle for hegemony; beyond him we conceptualize CSOs as contradictory, being simultaneously of and against the state, while the state is simultaneously outside and within them.     

Atomised Terror and Democratic Citizenship

This essay connects the 2103 Boston Bombings to the dynamics of a highly individualist, modern society. The perpetrators (Tsarnaev brothers) represent an atomized stratum of Americans, disconnected from communal institutions and organizations; socially insignificant men, ready to commit publicized, albeit isolated, acts of violence. With the exception of the World Trade Center, major terrorist attacks in the past two decades have been perpetrated by asocial, isolated individuals. An expansive security and welfare state is an inadequate response to atomized terror and is potentially problematic for our liberties. An approach more consistent with security and freedom is to nurture the rights and responsibilities of democratic citizenship.     

联合国军事维和人员不法行为的归责主体认定

联合国军事维和人员不法行为的归责主体认定非常复杂,须分两种情况讨论。在联合国指挥的维和行动中,联合国对维和部队具有行动控制权,派遣国具有纪律制裁权和刑事管辖权,维和部队既是联合国的附属机关,也是派遣国的机关。这种双重指挥机制决定了《国际组织的责任条款》第7条是最合适的法律依据。在联合国授权的维和行动中,指挥与控制机制较为复杂,被授权主体具有行动性指挥与控制,派遣国享有纪律制裁权和刑事管辖权,联合国具有最终控制。《国际组织的责任条款》第7条适用于认定被授权主体或派遣国的责任,不适合认定联合国责任。这两类维和行动均存在双重或多重归责的可能。     

中国市民社会研究的新进展——《国家与市民社会》(增订版)评介

《国家与市民社会》(增订版)为我们提供了认识和理解市民社会理论的清晰脉络:不但提供了市民社会作为一种需要不断反思的理论模型的面向,同时也提供了市民社会作为一种需要建构的社会实体的面向,或者说,不管是在理论方面还是在经验方面,该书都向读者提供了有关市民社会的令人印象深刻的视野范围,从而为读者较为完整地把握这一理论指明了方向。     

审讯参与者心理探析

审讯是一项复杂的心理交往活动，但这种交往又不是一般的人际交往，是审讯人员同犯罪嫌疑人带有心理冲突性的交往。本文从审讯活动心理准备阶段和展开初期入手，对审讯双方心理关系尤其是对犯罪嫌疑人心理状态及其特点进行了探讨．拟为审讯计划和审讯对策的制定提出心理学依据。进而增强审讯人员的实战水平和能力，实现审讯的目的。     

和谐视野下的治安管理主体研究——以法定职权为视角

治安管理主体是治安管理学理论中的重要概念,但是,目前对治安管理主体的理论阐释略显混乱。这种混乱的主要表现就是名称不统一,或称之为治安管理体制、或治安管理组织、或治安管理机构等。从逻辑学的角度,以职权为起点探讨治安管理主体的含义,可将其划分为国家机构类治安管理主体和社会组织类治安管理主体。     

论妨害公务的行为

《治安管理处罚法》第五十条规定了妨害公务的行为,正确理解其客观表现形式,解决认定中的棘手和难点问题,对正确区分违法与不违法及违法与犯罪有着重要意义。     

战国时期中山国商业初探

战国时期的“千乘之国”——中山国，凭借强大的军事力量跻身几个万乘大国之间，同称王，共征伐，其顽强的生命力源头就在于战国时期中山国国都灵寿城商品经济发达；水陆交通便利，商业贸易往来增加；货币经济在城市中有了相当发展。     

Denying Foreign State Immunity on the Grounds of the Unavailability of Alternative Means

Granting immunity from suit to a foreign state or an international organisation, deprives the plaintiff of access to court and appears incompatible with the rule of law. Since the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Waite v Germany (1999), the availability of alternative means for dispute settlement has been emphasised in the context of international organisation immunity. However in the case of foreign state immunity, this approach was not taken by the European Court of Human Rights in Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (2001) nor by the House of Lords in Jones v Ministry of the Interior of Saudi Arabia (2006). Likewise, foreign state immunity would be granted under the UN State Immunity Convention of 2004, regardless of whether there are alternative means. This Convention, rather than enhancing the rule of law, could lead to its attenuation. That several of these cases involve immunity in cases of torture sharpens their sensitivity.