检察机关技术性证据审查制度研究

我国检察机关技术性证据审查制度呈现出保障技术性证据质量、监督制约公安机关对技术性证据的取证水平、弥补相关人员不出庭的制度局限、促进检察机关重新配置资源等功能特点。检察机关针对审查技术性证据的文件扩展了技术性证据的范围,明确了进行审查的有专门知识的人的来源与条件,规定了审查人员的安全、费用各项保障与审查人员的义务。但从制度史的阐释而言,证据审查制度仍面临制度定位不清晰、配套机制不流畅以及内部技术资源短缺等问题。为落实检察机关对技术性证据的有效审查,充分发挥技术性证据在案件中的应有作用,不仅需要明确将技术性证据审查意见书仅作为审判参考,将技术审查人员定位于专家辅助人的角色,而且还应建立技术性证据审查专门制度,进一步完善技术性证据的审查范围与启动条件,合理配编司法技术人员、建立技术专家名单、鼓励帮助技术人员提升业务能力。     

程序正义及其局限性

程序正义是现代法的程序结构派生出的一种伦理形态 ,其本质为程序之中的伦理、非人格化的伦理、相对化和形式化的伦理、程序化的制度伦理。现实当中的程序正义是选举、司法以及立法、行政管理正当化的观念基础 ,宪政民主体制的伦理内涵。然而 ,程序正义之不幸在于其代表的乃是强者的正义 ,因而对弱者的权利保障是宪政民主体制不可缺少的组成部分。     

补偿博弈与第三方评估

从对公共利益、公众参与、公平补偿的强调来看,《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》相比《城市房屋拆迁管理条例》进步显著。然而,引入经济学中博弈论概念工具对该征收条例的解读表明,公平补偿能否实现在很大程度上取决于评估机构。该征收条例中一些模糊的规定,以及《国有土地上房屋征收评估办法》赋予评估机构以垄断地位的制度设计,为政府和评估机构的机会主义行为留下了极大的空间。由此,构建有效的第三方评估市场,并在政府报价之后赋予被征收人以真正的自由选择评估机构的权利,是构建法治社会中和谐的征收关系的关键。     

略论《刑事诉讼法》修改之后鉴定制度的完善——根据司法鉴定的价值和特点进行的分析

我国《刑事诉讼法》修改之后,为促进和保障刑事司法公正,与司法鉴定相关的制度、程序需要进一步完善.应当基于司法鉴定作为证据的基本特点,着眼于保障当事人的权利和规制职权机关的权力,从诉讼程序、证据制度以及管理制度等各个方面,推动我国相关程序、制度的完善.     

我国司法会计鉴定机构制度模式的评述

2005年全国人大会常委《关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》颁布后,我国建立何种类型的司法会计鉴定机构得到了明确的答案。但如何建立却没有任何经验可资借鉴。针对这一问题,分析了＂集中型＂和＂分散型＂两种模式的优劣,并提出了建立＂混合型＂司法会计鉴定机构应注意的几个问题,为建立与我国现行司法体制相适应的司法会计鉴定机构,在理论上进行一些探讨。     

Linking democratic anchorage and regulatory authority: The case of internet regulators

Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly questioned the democraticness and the authority of transnational multi‐stakeholder organizations, especially those that regulate the internet. To contribute to this discussion, we studied the “democratic anchorages” and the regulatory authority of 23 internet regulators. In particular, we conducted a fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis assessing whether and which anchorages correspond to necessary and/or sufficient conditions for exerting regulatory authority. Our results show that strong anchorage in democratic procedures is specifically relevant for this outcome. Further, we find that weak anchorage in democratically elected politicians leads to high regulatory authority, confirming the significance of non‐state actors in this policy field. More generally, our findings support but also qualify expectations about the compatibility and mutual reinforcement of democratic quality and regulatory authority at the transnational level.     

公安行政问责制的完善

随着我国"问责风暴"向"制度问责"的转变,如何更好地完善公安行政问责制就成为一个紧迫而现实的课题。目前制约公安行政问责制功能发挥的因素主要包括:公安行政文化滞后、职权划分模糊、问责主体角色缺位、警务公开度有限和警察绩效评估机制不完善等。针对上述制约因素,营造公安行政问责文化、严格划分权责界限、强调异体问责、加强警务公开以及完善绩效评估机制就构成了完善公安行政问责制的基本思路。     

Deliberative democracy and the politics of traditional leadership in South Africa: A case of despotic domination or democratic deliberation?

A heated debate developed in South Africa as to the meaning of ‘deliberative democracy’. This debate is fanned by the claims of ‘traditional leaders’ that their ways of village-level deliberation and consensus-oriented decision-making are not only a superior process for the African continent as it evolves from pre-colonial tradition, but that it represents a form of democracy that is more authentic than the Western version. Proponents suggest that traditional ways of deliberation are making a come-back because imported Western models of democracy that focus on the state and state institutions miss the fact that in African societies state institutions are often seen as illegitimate or simply absent from people's daily lives. In other words, traditional leadership structures are more appropriate to African contexts than their Western rivals. Critics suggest that traditional leaders, far from being authentic democrats, are power-hungry patriarchs and authoritarians attempting to both re-invent their political, social and economic power (frequently acquired under colonial and apartheid rule) and re-assert their control over local-level resources at the expense of the larger community. In this view, the concept of deliberative democracy is being misused as a legitimating device for a politics of patriarchy and hierarchy, which is the opposite of the meaning of the term in the European and US sense. This article attempts to contextualise this debate and show how the efforts by traditional leaders to capture an intermediary position between rural populations and the state is fraught with conflicts and contradictions when it comes to forming a democratic state and society in post-apartheid South Africa.     

The uses of history by the Polish democratic opposition in the late 1970s

During the late 1970s, members of the Polish democratic opposition revised and reinterpreted key elements in the Polish past in support of their contemporary ideas about Polish society and opposition. The birth of the independent press in Poland in 1976 provided these debates with a medium for wide dissemination and discussion. Analysis of democratic opposition debates in the independent press on the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, historic Polish–Russian relations, and the struggle for and achievement of independence in the early twentieth century shed light on the ways in which the democratic opposition perceived Polish society and the legacy of tolerance, diversity, nationalism, and socialism within it. It also reveals the major divisions within the democratic opposition and its primary tactical proposals prior to the birth of the Solidarity trade union in 1980. Forty years later, these debates continue to reverberate.     

Explaining non‐participation in deliberative mini‐publics

This article investigates citizens’ refusal to take part in participatory and deliberative mechanisms. An increasing number of scholars and political actors support the development of mini‐publics – that is, deliberative forums with randomly selected lay citizens. It is often argued that such innovations are a key ingredient to curing the democratic malaise of contemporary political regimes because they provide an appropriate means to achieve inclusiveness and well considered judgment. Nevertheless, real‐life experience shows that the majority of citizens refuse the invitation when they are recruited. This raises a challenging question for the development of a more inclusive democracy: Why do citizens decline to participate in mini‐publics? This article addresses this issue through a qualitative analysis of the perspectives of those who have declined to participate in three mini‐publics: the G1000, the G100 and the Climate Citizens Parliament. Drawing on in‐depth interviews, six explanatory logics of non‐participation are distinguished: concentration on the private sphere; internal political inefficacy; public meeting avoidance; conflict of schedule; political alienation; and mini‐public's lack of impact on the political system. This shows that the reluctance to take part in mini‐publics is rooted in the way individuals conceive their own roles, abilities and capacities in the public sphere, as well as in the perceived output of such democratic innovations.