英国行政裁判所的最新改革及其启示

20世纪90年代以来,英国行政法的一个重要动向是改革行政裁判所制度。作为英国宪政改革大背景下的具体产物,2007年《裁判所、法院和执行法》对行政裁判所的性质和定位、组成和结构、程序规则、裁决、上诉机制、裁决的监督和救济等都作了重大调整。这些做法对我国行政司法制度的完善具有参考借鉴价值。     

从宪法到宪政

今年 3月 ,全国人大通过了新的宪法修正案 ,包括人权、私有财产所有权、征收征用补偿权等重要权利已众望所归地进入了宪法 ,这意味着我国现行宪法向宪政迈出了更为坚实的一步 ,受到法学界的广泛关注与积极评价。为进一步宣传这次宪法修改的精神 ,加深对宪法基本价值的理解 ,近日 ,在华东政法学院举行了一场主题为“从宪法到宪政”的博士论坛 ,论坛由华东政法学院院长、博士生导师何勤华教授主持。在论坛中 ,各位主题发言人围绕着“宪法”与“宪政”两大主题 ,从宪法文化、宪法观念、宪法价值、宪法制度与技术等角度出发 ,结合西方宪法传统和我国宪法制度与宪法实践 ,畅谈了各自对于宪法与宪政的认识与感悟 ,并展望了我国宪法发展的基本脉向。本次论坛充分实现了策划的基本目标 ,对于进一步宣传宪法、研究宪法、贯彻宪法具有积极而深远的意义     

英国文化底蕴下的违宪审查制度

英国是近代“宪政之母”,在英国文化的积淀里形成了巴力门违宪审查模式。对于此,应该挖掘其文化底蕴,剖开文化底蕴的面纱,寻找英国文化底蕴下的违宪审查。反之,从违宪审查制度入手,寻找英国文化的积淀。     

Dogmatic Liberalism? T.R.S. Allan and the Common Law Constitution

Book reviewed in this article:
T.R.S. Allan, Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law     

公共行政的立宪分析

从宪政的视角思考公共行政通常被人们所忽视,文章分析了人们为什么会忽视从宪政秩序思考公共行政问题,探讨两种宪政秩序与公共行政之间的内在关系,即统治秩序与官僚制行政之间关系,自治秩序与民主制行政之间关系,并在此基础之上,进一步总结了两种行政理论之间的区别。     

论我国宪法权威的缺失及建构途径

宪法作为国家的根本大法，在法律体系中处于核心地位。宪法权威存在于三个层面：法律文本上的权威和公民意识中的权威和社会实践中的权威。我国存在着宪法权威缺失的情况。建构宪法的权威，同样需要从法律制度、思想观念、社会实践三个方面作出努力。     

La constitucionalización del derecho en méxico

In this essay I defend the idea that the mexican legal order has been partially constitutionalized since the amendment to the first article of the Constitution in june 2011. I argue that some conditions of a constitutionalized legal system can be found in this rule. An analysis of those conditions is carried out through the work and in the end I discuss the matter of whether this constitutional change amounts to a new legal paradigm.     

Authoritarian constitutionalism in Putin's Russia: A pragmatic constitutional court in a dual state

This article analyzes the successful adaptation of the Russian Constitutional Court (RCC) to an increasingly authoritarian regime under President Vladimir Putin. It argues that the key to its success lay in its pragmatic approach, whereby the Court decides cases that matter to the regime in a politically expedient way, while giving priority to legal and constitutional considerations in other cases, thereby recognizing the reality of a dual state. Over the years the RCC has taken a pragmatic approach in its reaction to changes in the rules of its operations, in its personnel, and in the policies of the popular political leader, including reducing the country's subordination of European legal norms. In so doing, the Court and its skillful chairman Valerii Zorkin achieved considerable autonomy in pursuing its own legal vision on many issues and even improved the implementation of its decisions by other judges and political bodies alike (previously a big problem). In short, the RCC developed its own version of “authoritarian constitutionalism”, which may serve as a model for constitutional judicial bodies in other authoritarian states.     

Public commitment strategies in intergovernmental negotiations on the EU Constitutional Treaty

We analyze the impact of public commitment strategies as bargaining tools in the negotiations on the EU Constitutional Treaty using a sequential-bargaining model with incomplete information. The analysis suggests selection bias in observable public commitments with respect to the kind of issues that are publicly challenged as well as the kind of governments that will ‘go public’. Public commitments are more likely under high uncertainty over audience costs. Further, the effect of public commitments on the duration and outcome of negotiation is conditional as well. In our empirical analysis, where we analyze the intergovernmental stage of the negotiations on the European Constitutional Treaty, we find strong empirical support for each of our theoretical predictions. Governments were most likely to commit publicly if they represented a domestic constituency that was negative about the EU Constitution and, at the same time, contained many undecided respondents. Moreover, these public commitments were generally quickly accommodated. In contrast, public commitments were less likely to lead to any changes if they were made by governments representing a domestic constituency that was relatively positive about the draft Constitution or negative and decided. In the latter case, however, public statements made bargaining deadlock more likely.