Affirmative Action in an Institutional Context: The Antecedents of Policy Preferences and Political Support

This study broadens the framework within which the psychology of support for affirmative action policies is examined to include the institutional framework within which such policies are developed and implemented. This broader framework includes concern with electoral support for those who implement affirmative action policies, as well as considering the impact of implementing such policies on the overall legitimacy of government. It also includes evaluations of the fairness of the two key social institutions shaping such policies—government authorities and markets. The results of a survey of Americans suggest that this institutional framework had an important influence on reactions to affirmative action policies that was distinct from direct reactions to policies themselves. In particular, people were more supportive of policies intervening in markets when they believed that markets represented unfair social allocation procedures. Those politicians who supported such policies received greater electoral support when people viewed market procedures as being unfair and when they felt that government decision-making procedures were fair. Evidence suggests that outcomes did not directly shape electoral support or judgments about the legitimacy of government.     

Men's attitudes toward affirmative action: Justice and intergroup relations at the crossroads

Two studies were conducted to examine some factors that may motivate support of or opposition to affirmative action programs for women. In the first study, a sample of 96 French-speaking male managers and professionals were presented with one of three versions of an affirmative action program to benefit women in blue-collar jobs. The men were asked about their endorsements and beliefs about the program described to them and (using a neosexism scale) about sex equity. Results indicate that neosexist attitudes influence support of the program presented, and articulating adherence to a merit principle in affirmative action influences perceptions of fairness. The second study evaluated reactions to an affirmative action program targeting jobs similar to those of the participants. Four conditions were designed to determine which element or combinations of elements of information presented in the first merit condition might have a stronger impact on fairness evaluations. A total of 131 francophone male managers and professionals participated in this study. Results reveal that neosexist attitudes influence level of support for the program. Both neosexism and the four conditions had an impact on evaluations of fairness.     

民事诉讼法前沿理论问题

体系问题是民事诉讼法修订中最重要的问题:在未来的民事诉讼法中是否需要保留证据制度、再审制度、执行制度、非讼程序等尚需进一步探讨;破产程序应从民事诉讼法中剔除;应当增加人事诉讼程序、法律审、小额诉讼、诉讼费用、第三人撤销诉讼、票据诉讼等规定.另外,起诉制度、一事不再理原则、证明责任、证明标准、民事检察监督等需要进一步完善.     

《海诉法》中的直诉保险人制度

针对目前《海诉法》第97条的适用范围,从三个方面进行分析:在实体法中未规定保险人直接向受损害人支付保险赔款的义务时,受损害人直接向保险人提出的赔偿请求因没有实体法支持而无法实现;责任保险中,除法律的规定和保险合同的约定外,责任保险的保险人无义务直接向被保险人以外的第三人履行保险合同项下支付赔款的义务;中国目前的法律中对于直接诉讼保险人是设有条件的,尚无受损害人可以不受任何条件制约就可直接向保险人提出索赔的法律规定,并得出结论:《海诉法》第97条目前仅应适用于《1992年民事责任公约》规定适用的油污责任保险。     

权利失效之浅析

权利失效是在诚实信用的基础上,对权利滥用的限制,德国、日本以及我国的台湾地区亦已规定了此项制定。然而,我国正在讨论的民法草案并未涉及此项制度,实为一缺憾。笔者试就这一制度的内容、基本构成要件,以及在我国建立此项制度的重要意义加以阐述,以期对我国民法草案的完善有所帮助。     

Horizontal Effect and the Constitutional Constraint

This article offers a new interpretation – the ‘constitutional constraint’ model – of the duty the Human Rights Act imposes on the courts to give horizontal effect to European Convention rights through the common law. The model requires courts to develop the common law compatibly with the Convention, but only where compatibility can be achieved by incremental development. We argue that models requiring more than incremental development are unsustainable; that deep constitutional norms compel the constraint of incrementalism, which is preserved under the HRA; and that by virtue of section 2 of the HRA, Convention rights function as principles rather than hard‐edged rights in this context. This further undermines the idea that the courts must strictly apply Convention rights and cannot allow them to be overridden by non‐Convention factors. The final section explores the nature of incrementalism in this context and the impact of the model on the doctrine of judicial precedent.     

探索与前进:论小额速裁程序的构建

从我国近二十年来社会发展的状况和司法实践的需求来看,"普通———简易"的一审诉讼程序类型已经越来越凸显其粗陋之处。近年来,急速膨胀的司法需求迫使人民法院纷纷展开简化诉讼程序、提高司法效率的探索,小额速裁的探索便是其中一种。小额速裁的本质要求是在兼顾公平正义的基础上进一步提高诉讼效率,因此小额速裁的设计必须把握公正与效率之间的平衡。     

论诉讼时效的适用范围

在任何一种时效的立法模式中,权利人的败诉(无胜诉权)都是必然现象。所谓胜诉权消灭仅为时效完成时发生的程序上的效果而非时效的目的,故诉讼时效的客体不应是胜诉权而是因时效届满受到影响的某种实体权利。在各种请求权中,除物权请求权不适用诉讼时效之外,人格权上请求权、身份权上请求权以及知识产权上请求权中,凡以财产给付为内容的债权请求权,当然适用诉讼时效,凡不以财产给付为内容的请求权,则原则上不适用诉讼时效,而形成权等程序性权利以及继承权等资格性权利均不得适用诉讼时效。故如果将消除影响、恢复名誉、赔礼道歉三种请求权视为债权,则诉讼时效的适用范围仅为债权。     

The Chocolate Conundrum: A Simple Simulation of a Canonical Management Problem

This article describes an exercise that simulates one of the most famous of all human management problems: the “tragedy of the commons.” Coined by Garret Hardin in 1968, the term refers to any situation in which people acting rationally to meet their individual interests wind up depleting a shared resource to the detriment of all participants. Because these patterns arise in many real‐world situations — from global warming and natural resource management to free‐rider problems in markets and organizations — this exercise may interest a broad range of negotiation scholars, teachers, and practitioners. The Chocolate Conundrum is a simple exercise that uses candy to demonstrate the tension between individual and collective interests that arises in all social dilemmas. Because these dynamics also arise in many real situations, the exercise can be a powerful teaching tool for instructors in management, public policy, sociology, economics, and many other social science disciplines. Unlike some other simulations of collective action problems, this exercise is simple to administer, requires no computation or tallying of results, and works with a broad range of audiences and group sizes.     

不法原因给付与诈骗罪

不法原因给付是一个在理论上颇具争议的问题,尚缺乏必要的深入研究。不法原因给付与诈骗罪在认定上的最大障碍源于刑法与民法在一定程度上的冲突,即在此类案件中,民法与刑法的价值导向是不同的。但若本着"刑法看行为,民法看关系"这一刑民关系的基本观点,并以此作为切入点,则不法原因给付与诈骗罪之间的模糊地带将变得清晰起来,即民法虽然不保护不法原因给付,但刑法着眼于行为人的行为符合诈骗罪的构成,仍应认定骗取不法原因给付的行为构成诈骗罪。