环境权可司法性的法理与实证

受传统人权理论的影响,环境权的可司法性一直受到质疑,有学者甚至进而否认环境权是一项独立的人权.可以说,环境权的可司法性研究,是我国环境权理论研究中的一个瓶颈问题.考诸各国法制实践,环境权的司法救济有直接救济和间接救济两条路径,而其司法哲学基础则为司法能动主义.     

关于20世纪中国史学发展道路的对话

20世纪中国史学名家辈出,成就巨大,今天对其发展道路认真地反思、总结,具有重要的学术价值和现实意义。首先,应当树立动态发展的眼光,从宏观上做出“新史学流派”的新概括,研究它如何由“思潮”发展到“流派”,研究这一群体所取得的重大成就,这一群体学者的共性和各自的学术个性;并进而形成20世纪史学“三大干流”（新史学流派、新历史考证学派、马克思主义史学流派）平行发展和相互影响的总体研究思路,取代以往“两大干流”的认识。其次,应进一步探究新历史考证学如何继承了乾嘉考证学的优良传统,同时又因获得进化史观等新的理论指导而成为一门近代学术;至1949年以后,又因为接受唯物史观的指导,而推进到新的境界。再次,对于马克思主义史学,应如实地总结它取得的巨大成就,同时深刻反思其经历过的曲折;要开掘出“传统思想的精华如何通向唯物史观”一类的新课题;对于建国后“十七年”史学,应抓住“两种对立的学风”这一关键做观察、分析,既认真总结教条主义一度盛行的深刻教训,又恰如其分地总结正直学者发扬优良学风而取得的巨大成绩,以此坚定我们坚持和发展唯物史观、用以指导史学研究的信心。     

“We Need to Have a Meeting”: Public Housing Demolition and Collective Agency in Atlanta,Georgia

The last two decades have witnessed widespread demolition of public housing and a large-scale relocation of public housing residents. Much of the current literature has examined the impact of demolition on relocated residents, focusing primarily on individual outcomes such as employment, housing quality, and health. This article examines the potential collective consequences of relocation by using data from 40 in-depth interviews conducted with relocated public housing residents in Atlanta, Georgia, to examine experiences of civic engagement and tenant activism before and after relocation. Participants describe frequent experiences of civic engagement and tenant activism in their public housing communities prior to demolition and also discuss how these collective actions often translated into meaningful gains for their communities. Participants also describe challenges associated with reestablishing these sources of collective agency in their new, post demolition, private-market rental communities where opportunities for civic engagement and tenant activism were perceived to be limited, where stigma was a barrier to social interaction, and where they experienced significant residential instability.     

‘We are Jamaicans:’ living with and challenging the criminalization of homosexuality in Jamaica

Today, some 80 countries around the world have legislation criminalizing homosexuality, while those who engage in same-sex relations risk mob violence resulting from cultural intolerance. Despite this, gay rights advocacy within these countries exists. This paper examines gay rights advocacy in Jamaica – a nation which criminalizes same-sex relations and which has been identified by observers as among the most intolerant of same-sex relations. Using interviews with gay rights activists working with Jamaica’s leading gay rights organization, this paper describes the gay rights movement in a climate of repression. It begins with an overview of Jamaican sexual values, tracing its condemnation of homosexuality to a history of plantation slavery. Next, it discusses the emergence of a gay pride movement and the development of a broad-based association for all sexual orientations and identities. Finally, it examines the advocacy and activism of the Jamaican Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals, and Gays, a voice for Jamaica’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community. Throughout, the paper reveals how even an oppressed identity may find a voice and thrive despite the greatest of legal and cultural challenges.     

Behind a veil of secrecy: animal abuse,factory farms,and Ag-Gag legislation

Abstract

For years, animal rights organizations have sought to expose animal cruelty on America’s factory farms. With the meat and dairy industry inaccessible to the public, animal advocates rely on undercover investigators who gain access to farms by becoming employees. Working from the inside, these investigators become whistleblowers when they reveal animal cruelty unrelated to the already inhumane conditions of animal husbandry. An effective strategy that has exposed animal abuse as well as conditions threatening to public health, in recent years the agriculture industry has pressured legislatures to enact laws that criminalize photography at factory farms. Dubbed ‘Ag-Gag’ laws by critics, the emergence of legislation targeting animal rights advocates raises important questions relevant to animal welfare, animal rights activism, and freedom of speech. This paper exposes the failure of government institutions to protect animals on factory farms while simultaneously silencing what is currently the only available mechanism for Americans to learn about abuse on factory farms. It also explores the Constitutional implications of Ag-Gag laws. Not only are Ag-Gag laws presumptively unconstitutional, but with their enactment – animal welfare remains unchanged, the American consumer remains uninformed, and America’s factory farms are free to abuse animals behind a legal veil of secrecy.     

能动抑或谦抑：行政法规范解释的司法审查限度-以最高人民法院公报中案例为范本

法院审查行政法规范解释的介入限度应当是既能动,又不失谦抑。应从整体上赋予法院法律解释权,确立法院在法律解释问题上的权威。在审查行政法规范解释时,应首先确定法律、行政法规和规章本身对解释是否有明确规定,并考察是否存在充分授权,对解释进行合法性审查。其次区分解释的形式,从合理性等因素展开审查。     

Global Civil Society and International Summits: New Labels for Different Types of Activism at the COP15

Research in the field of citizenship, civil society, and social movements in relation to larger democratic summits has either focused on radical confrontational elements of activism, broad public demonstrations, or the professional non-governmental organizations. In this article, I label the types of activist groups involved in and around the COP15 climate summit in Copenhagen (2009). My proposition is that such a categorization may help to refine the general debate through more nuanced distinctions and accurate definitions and provide a better understanding of why the creative elements seem to take a central role in today's activist landscape. I develop these typological conceptual representations based on an understanding of civil society as a mediating catalyst. By presenting six versions of citizenship participation based on an analysis of diverse ends and means, I identify how each of them has their own specific logic about the democratic challenges surrounding the summit. This analysis leads me to address the question of whether an attempt to bridge the gap between the official system and the active citizen through a distinction between antagonistic and negotiation-friendly forms of activism is fruitful. In conclusion, the creative activist is revealed as a mediating figure in civil society pointing towards a new definition of ‘facilitating citizenship’.     

Unveiling Nepal's Civil Society

The main purpose of this paper is to provide information about Nepal's civil society as far as possible, as the same has become much contested in recent years. The article looks into the different traditions (from traditional to post-modern) of civil society in Nepal as an endeavour to take stock of where it stands vis-à-vis with various factors in the context of economy, polity, and society. The paper argues that, although Nepal has a very long tradition of civil society, the extant one is highly politicized. Part of the problem with politicization lies with perpetual political instability and part with the way civil society has come to be understood. In the context of Nepal, there are yet no clear tools developed to map the civil society. It concludes that one cannot have water-tight compartmentalization of civil society and other societies as they are interdependent, but when civil society groups lose the civility factor, they are bound to face legitimacy questions—which perhaps is the case in Nepal.     

Legal/illegal: protesting citizenship in Fortress America

This article examines the issue of legality and illegality, focusing on U.S. citizenship, anti-immigrant rage, and pro-immigrant protests. The central case study is an analysis of what I call digital rage, namely, the rhetorical strategies present in anti-immigrant online activism. I argue that online performance of rage invests in acts of bordering (Nyers 2008) which propel a discourse of white supremacist pure nation and neurotic citizenship (Isin 2004). The final part of this article explores No Human Being is Illegal, a protest art exhibition. Imaginatively refusing forms of citizenship grounded in legal/illegal axis, the exhibition exposes U.S. citizenship itself as illegal, rooted in the colonization of indigenous people and in current neocolonizing practices of exploitation.