社会正义抑或个人自由?——庞德利益理论根本诉求的探究

罗斯科·庞德利益理论的根本诉求经历了从强调社会利益、社会正义到强调个人利益、个人自由这一转向过程。揭示出这一为大多数论者所忽略的转向过程不仅能够澄清既有讨论中的社会利益论和中性框架论这两种解读进路在理论上的误读之处和理论缺陷,从而对庞德利益理论的发展保有一种动态而全面的理解,更有助于在此基础上洞见庞德的利益理论所具有的表面上的开放性和根本上的封闭性,以及其封闭性为利益理论带来的理论限度——这种理论限度恰恰是我们在探寻一种社会转型时期的中国法律哲学时应当给予特别注意的。     

检察机关提起公益诉讼程序性问题探析

在检察机关提起公益诉讼案件日益增多情况下,我国有关此类诉讼的程序缺失问题也逐步凸显。目前,检察机关提起的公益诉讼在诉讼的类型、检察机关的身份、是否需要程序前置、诉讼费用及后果的分担、实体及程序的处分权以及证明责任等一系列基础性程序问题上需要进一步明确。检察机关提起公益案件涉及到的程序问题是制约该制度发展关键所在,学界对此应当积极回应,我国的程序立法也应及时修改,以适应现实需要。     

我国民事公益诉讼的制度建构

民事公益诉讼的提出是当前侵害国家利益和社会公共利益的案件大量涌现却得不到适当解决的情势所需.民事公益诉讼的目的,是立法者基于其客观需要和民事诉讼、民事公益诉讼的本质及其规律的认识,而预先设定的理想目标.它是民事公益诉讼制度构建的逻辑起点,由此论及民事公益诉讼的原则、管辖、原告资格认定、诉讼受案范围、证明责任分担、诉讼费用等内容,目的是对民事公益诉讼制度在我国的全面确立有所裨益.     

政府应充分发挥工会在调整利益分配格局中的作用

社会和谐稳定的基础是各阶层利益相对均衡。工资协商共决,是工会维权的核心举措和基本手段;公共服务社会治理,是工会维权的相关领域。这是工会在调整社会利益格局中两个基本支点。各级政府在调整劳资利益和社会阶层利益中,运行手中行政权力资源,提供相应制度配置和物质保障,充分发挥工会的国家政权重要社会支柱作用。     

(Non‐)Enforcement of Directors’ Duties in Corporate Groups: Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd

Corporate groups, a ubiquitous feature of modern business, pose formidable challenges for common law courts relying on traditional corporate law doctrine. Arising out of a corporate group's recent bid to recover millions of dollars in lost profits from a former director and CEO who had diverted a core business, Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd raised thorny issues of separate legal entity doctrine, single economic unit theory, and reflective loss shared by common law legal systems. Despite finding that the defendant had breached his duties to the ultimate holding company, the Singapore Court of Appeal absolved the faithless director from most of his liabilities, relying on limited domestic precedent to the exclusion of a rich body of Commonwealth jurisprudence – including the House of Lords’ landmark Johnson v Gore Wood decision. This note explores the paths not taken by the court, and highlights the pitfalls of a narrow, autochthonous approach to problems of common law doctrine.     

著作权内在利益平衡机制与反垄断法的介入——美国录音制品数字表演权制度的启示

反垄断与保护知识产权均仅是实现其共同目标的手段,其本身并非最终制度目的。就著作权法律制度而言,这体现在其应当建立完善的内在利益平衡机制,从"护权——限权"两个角度对著作权既加以保护、又防止其滥用。在这方面,美国的DPRSR制度堪称典范,我国与之对应的信息网络传播权制度却有待完善。著作权内在利益平衡机制一旦失灵,根据其失灵的情形,可能产生不同的损害。其中对于可能产生竞争损害的,在必要条件下,反垄执法机构应当及时介入,保护市场竞争和消费者利益不受著作权滥用行为的损害,保障反垄断和保护知识产权共同目标的实现。     

论诉的利益理论在公益诉讼制度中的运用——兼评《关于检察公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第19、21、24条

在检察机关的全部诉讼请求已经获得全部实现的情形下,人民法院没有必要对公益诉讼案件（继续）进行实体审理。但是,在检察行政公益诉讼的情形下,检察机关丧失请求被告纠正违法行为或依法履行职责的利益,并不当然意味着其同时丧失请求法院对被告的违法行政行为进行确认的利益。为了及时救济遭受损害或威胁的社会公共利益,引导被告尽早纠正违法行为或依法履行职责,应当根据被告纠正违法行为或依法履行职责的时间,设计不完全相同的规则。     

数字政府建设中的政务服务

本文基于新公共管理和新公共服务两大理论的学理分析,剖析了数字政府建设中政务服务效能提升的制约瓶颈并提供了相应的对策建议.分析结果表明:分散的政务服务抑制了服务效能、异向的政务数据影响了业务协同、失衡的供给能力制约了发展水平.研究结论认为,优化政务服务基础平台、完善政务信息共享机制、提高政务服务供给能力是数字政府建设中政...     

Conflicts of Interest and Governance Mechanisms in Italian Local Public Utilities

Stemming from different theoretical perspectives the article examines the conflicts of interest arising among the actors (citizens, local governments, private shareholders, service providers) that at various levels are involved in local public utilities governance systems. The main results of a multiple case study analysis on 10 Italian listed local public utilities are summarized. Different and coexisting situations of conflicts of interest among multiple principals and agents are identified. In this context, governance mechanisms (e.g., the board of directors) have different roles and functions and may prevent and mitigate such conflicts. However, our findings suggest that the ownership structure influences board composition and functioning and that higher numbers of independent directors do not necessarily mean “actual” board independence. The article contributes to the debate on conflicts of interest and governance mechanisms in local public utilities.     

NPM Reforms and Professionals in Health and Higher Education in Portugal

The aim of this article is to analyze comparatively how academics, physicians, and nurses positioned themselves in relation to the reconfiguration of power structures and decisional processes, under New Public Management influence, in the hospitals, and higher education institutions. The empirical data are gathered from a survey applied to the three professional groups. Quantitative results show that the three groups have similar positions concerning power concentration at institutions’ top governance. However, relevant differences emerge in their views concerning the organization and control of the social division of work and also of their professional practices.