后单位制时期街区集体抗争的产生及其逻辑——对一次街区集体抗争事件的实证分析

现有研究认为,虽然在单位制时期的街区经常看到的是强势的国家和原子化的居民,但自20世纪90年代中期以来,城市基层社会中一个突出现象就是维权性集体抗争的兴起.以发生J市的一次"垃圾压缩站"事件为例,对以上问题进行了讨论.并指出,后单位制时期街区集体抗争包括如下三个层面的逻辑一是通过媒体声援将特定的地方性问题变成公共话语;二是运用说服性沟通策略使抗争行动合法化;三是建构共识性危机使潜在动员者变成实际参与者.最后将街区集体抗争与乡村集体抗争作了简略比较.     

台湾地区诉讼上和解制度及其启示

通过对我国台湾地区民事诉讼法的规定和专家学者的观点的介绍,对台湾地区诉讼上和解制度的概念、特征、性质、效力以及诉讼上和解瑕疵的救济四个方面予以总结.对台湾地区诉讼上和解制度进行评介,以期对我国民事诉讼和解制度的建立和健全有所启示,对替代性纠纷解决方式研究以及建立和谐社会有所裨益.     

MORALITY,MARKETS, AND THE ASC: 2011 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY*

This Presidential Address explores the possibilities for fruitful multilevel theorizing in criminology by proposing an integration of insights from situational action theory (SAT), a distinctively micro‐level perspective, with insights from institutional anomie theory (IAT), a distinctively macro‐level perspective. These perspectives are strategic candidates for integration because morality plays a central role in both. IAT can enrich SAT by identifying indirect causes of crime that operate at the institutional level and by highlighting the impact of the institutional context on the perception‐choice process that underlies crime. Such multilevel theorizing can also promote the development of IAT by revealing the “micro‐instantiations” of macro‐level processes and by simulating further inquiry into the social preconditions for institutional configurations that are conducive to low levels of crime. Finally, drawing on Durkheim's classic work on occupational associations, I point to the potential role of professional associations such as the American Society of Criminology in promoting and sustaining a viable moral order in the advanced capitalist societies.     

Does Control Make a Difference? The Moral Foundations of Shareholder Liability for Corporate Wrongs

The doctrine of limited liability, as traditionally understood, prevents shareholders from being held personally liable for corporate wrongs. Several authors have recently argued that the doctrine should be modified to make some or all shareholders individually liable for torts committed by corporations in which they hold shares. This article distinguishes three types of argument that might provide a moral basis for shareholder liability in such cases. I contend that while these arguments support holding at least some shareholders liable for corporate torts, they fail to justify a general regime of unlimited pro rata shareholder liability. The level of control shareholders exercise over a company makes an important difference to their moral duties to compensate victims of corporate wrongdoing.     

被害人独立诉讼主体地位的回归

原始的刑事自诉模式下,被害人为刑事诉讼的主体之一。但在漫长的中世纪,被害人陷入证人的境地,国家成为唯一的诉讼主体。当代,虽然被害人普遍地被当作刑事诉讼的当事人,但是并不具有独立的诉讼主体地位,所以传统的刑事诉讼结构一直没有被害人的一席之地。现代刑事诉讼制度应当恢复刑事被害人的诉讼主体地位,并设计相应的制度充分保障刑事被害人诉讼主体地位的实现。     

村民自治与居民自治的差异分析——以“让农民上楼行动”为例

村民自治和居民自治在治理基础上存在着一定的差异,即在依赖实体、地方性规范、社会秩序和人情交往等方面并不相同,如果忽视了二者之间的差异可能会导致严重的后果。例如"让农民上楼行动",在治理基础未变的情况下改变治理方式,可能会给农村社会的稳定发展带来一些弊端:破坏了农民的生产生活方式,引发了农民因上楼致贫,造成了基层政府的管理困境。本文通过村民自治和居民自治的差异分析探讨了"让农民上楼行动"的弊端,旨在提醒政策制定者和实施者不要盲目地推进城镇化。     

撤诉的诉讼时效后果

权利人撤诉后,因起诉而生的中断效力归于消灭,因为起诉是"独立"中断事由,它不依附于"请求"事由;起诉是"程序性"中断事由,要遵守程序法逻辑。中国式撤诉规则及其实践、起诉难现实、时效期间短、义务人不诚信等规则或现实不足以否定"不中断"立场。时效自撤诉之日起继续计算,但为防止权利人无足够时间行使权利,可规定"撤诉后6个月内时效不完成"。     

包庇黑社会性质组织罪若干问题研究

包庇黑社会性质组织罪是指国家机关工作人员包庇黑社会性质组织的行为。它是修订后的刑法在第 2 94条第 4款所增加的一个新罪名。本罪所侵犯的直接客体是什么 ?包庇的对象是否只能是“黑社会性质的组织” ?“包庇”行为如何界定以及本罪的立法是否需要进一步的完善等问题均值得研究     

双向汲取:社区社会组织的行动路径分析

社会组织是推动国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的重要力量。聚焦社会组织行动策略研究,能够更好地揭示外部制度环境制约下的社会组织参与基层社会治理的微观运行机制。运用"制度环境-行动策略-行动目标-行动任务"的分析框架,着重探讨社会组织与基层政府、社区居委会、社区居民之间的复杂互动关系,剖析复杂制度环境下社会组织行为策略选择及其多元化行动路径。S市G组织的个案研究表明,G组织通过"双向汲取"的行动策略能够实现社会组织行政性目标与社会性目标的双重目标达成。由于G组织接受任务的不同行动目标来源以及不同任务之间的相关性程度差异,使得G组织"双向汲取"行动策略呈现出复杂制度结构约束下的多元化行动路径。     

Legitimacy,self-determination,and conditional cooperators

ABSTRACT

This article critically examines the account of collective self-determination and state legitimacy developed by Stilz in her book. Central to this account is the idea that for a state to be legitimate it must reflect the shared will of the people over which it governs. I argue that the normative taxonomy Stilz employs to develop this criterion of legitimacy ignores the possibility of conditional cooperators: groups who are alienated from society due to the injustices they experience but are willing to affirm their participation in state institutions if these injustices are rectified. I then demonstrate that since there are no grounds for discounting the dissent of conditional cooperators, their presence significantly increases the threshold for state legitimacy that follows from Stilz’s theory. As a result, Stilz is forced to abandon her claim that basically just states generally enjoy a qualified ‘right to do wrong’.