“附加程序”的法律评析:从WTO石棉案开始

"附加程序"是WTO争端解决制度采信"法庭之友"提交的陈述的证据规则,其产生根源在于对"法庭之友"制度的引入与控制的制度根源、上诉机构"造法"权力的扩张与自制的权力根源和贸易自由化与环境保护的价值困境所造成的价值根源。同时,推进、制衡和增加透明度是"附加程序"三项尤为重要的法律功能。"附加程序"说明法律程序的合理与完善是争端解决和价值权衡的一种新的路径,在带来启发的同时它还引发了一些问题值得进行继续关注和研究。     

论侦查启动之随机性——由儿童失踪立案程序转变透视我国侦查启动模式之利弊

我国刑事诉讼法在侦查程序之前设立了立案程序,并将其作为刑事诉讼的启动程序,这使得我国刑事侦查启动被归于典型的程序性启动模式。然而,实践中,立案程序的设计存在着严重的弊端,由此也产生了许多难以解决的问题。现今大多数国家都采用了随机型的侦查启动模式,且随机型侦查启动模式较之程序型启动模式更为科学、合理,更有利于实现刑事诉讼打击犯罪与保障人权的双重目的。可见,在当下,重构我国的侦查启动程序,已成为一个迫切需要我们解决的问题。     

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), Anno 2013: Reframing The Comparative Method's Seminal Statements

This review article examines the ways in which QCA is being (re)framed by some main authors in the field, in a context of expansion and diversification of this approach and set of techniques. Charles Ragin's seminal The Comparative Method (1987) is first synthetized in the form of eight statements which are then confronted to eight recent book‐length publications: three QCA textbooks and five methodological volumes also touching upon QCA. On the whole, it appears that most statements have been considerably refined, both conceptually and technically, whereas only one statement is not taken on board anymore. In addition, QCA is being reframed and extended in different ways beyond Charles Ragin's initial statements.     

论行政执法检察监督范围、方式与权力边界

在社会转型、法治初创的社情下,由于种种原因,检察机关的行政法律监督较为薄弱,在一定程度上存在法律监督空位和监督不力的状况。这种＂缺位＂现象主要体现在行政执法监督的范围、方式以及权力行使边界等基础的检察监督理论尚未形成统一认识和可行性监督路径。检察机关的行政执法监督的范围应界定为＂具体行政行为的合法性＂。行政执法监督权方式可划分为检察监督侦查权、检察监督诉权、检察监督建议权三类。行政执法监督的权力边界,即行政执法监督权的行使应坚持谦仰原则和＂刑事先理＂原则,形成内外结合的权力制约机制和＂被动申请为主、主动介入为辅＂的权力启动机制。     

发挥民主党派对权力运行的监督作用

民主党派对共产党的权力运行进行监督既是民主党派的重要职能,也是多党合作的重要形式。针对民主党派对权力运行监督中存在的主要问题,我们要提高民主党派的政党意识,健全对权力运行的监督机制,增加民主党派担任实职的机会。只有充分发挥民主党派对权力运行的监督作用,才能让权力在阳光下运行,才能正确用好权力这把"双刃剑"。     

藏区刑事案件发案特点、原因及防控对策--以四川省康定县为调查对象

藏区地理环境特殊,经济、文化、教育发展水平相对落后,其刑事犯罪有自身特点。刑事犯罪的防控工作需要因地制宜。以康定县为例,该县刑事犯罪呈现出较强的季节性特点,案件多与虫草相关,家族仇杀等恶性命案以及赌博、拦路抢劫案件多发,各类劳务、劳资纠葛引发的案件逐渐增多。其刑事犯罪案件发生原因主要有犯罪者个体、职能管理部门乃至社会大环境方面存在的弊端。刑事犯罪的防控需要相应地从上述多方面寻求对策。     

Finding the missing and unknown: Novel educational approaches to warming up cold cases

In recent years, students in police academies and higher education institutions around the world have worked together to analyse cold cases including long-term missing persons cases in collaboration with investigators and prosecutors. In 2020, three European organisations, the Police Expert Network on Missing Persons (PEN-MP), AMBER Alert Europe and Locate International, succeeded in connecting these educational organisations enabling them to work collectively on cases and conduct cold case analyses (CCA) across international borders. The International Cold Case Analysis Project (ICCAP) learning objectives were to 1) collect the necessary information about the victim, 2) reconstruct the crime, and 3) investigate trace control.In a learning objective-based evaluation using Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing, 76 participating students from the German and International ICCAP teams were asked to complete a pre- and post-review questionnaire to self-assess their personal competence development. Participants reported significant increases in competence in all evaluated areas, thus demonstrating that authentic and relevant collaborations can enrich the learning environment, promote the use of professional skills, and provide significant knowledge exchange opportunities between academia and industry.Drawing on case studies of cold case missing persons' investigations and unidentified found remains, this article shares how university academics, students and community volunteers can work together nationally and internationally to find out what has happened to missing people and how we can more effectively identify the previously unidentified. In so doing, we share the expertise required to progress these cold cases and provide recommendations to support other institutions and organisations in adopting this innovative approach.     

Study on the Consensus Issue of the Criminal Procedure Law and the Supervision System

The reform of the supervision system raises the consensus issue of the Supervision Law and the Criminal Procedure Law. The convergence of the two laws cannot be achieved only by the technical connection and synergy, but also by dissolving the inner conflicts of the litigation values. For one thing, the Supervision Law lays stress on the “Criminal Control Value” of the criminal justice; for another, the Criminal Procedure Law strives to attach equal importance to both “Combating Crime” and “Protecting Human Rights”. Because of the conflicting schemes of values which are possessed by the two laws separately, the convergence of the processes becomes complex, which contains the distinction between criminal “investigation” and supervising “survey”, the jurisdiction of the duty crime cases, the conversion of the coercive measures, the process of returning a case for supplementary survey, and the pleading guilty procedure for a lenient punishment, etc. For the political effect, “adopting severe punishment in trouble times” can play an important role in the short term, which may establish the atmosphere that no one dare to commit corruption crimes. But a system of both “Combating Crime” and“Protecting Human Rights” is the long-term solution, which lays the emphasis on both the sustainability and the due process of the anti-corruption in China.     

The Reliability of Lie Detection Performance

We examined whether individuals’ ability to detect deception remained stable over time. In two sessions, held one week apart, university students viewed video clips of individuals and attempted to differentiate between the lie-tellers and truth-tellers. Overall, participants had difficulty detecting all types of deception. When viewing children answering yes–no questions about a transgression (Experiments 1 and 5), participants’ performance was highly reliable. However, rating adults who provided truthful or fabricated accounts did not produce a significant alternate forms correlation (Experiment 2). This lack of reliability was not due to the types of deceivers (i.e., children versus adults) or interviews (i.e., closed-ended questions versus extended accounts) (Experiment 3). Finally, the type of deceptive scenario (naturalistic vs. experimentally-manipulated) could not account for differences in reliability (Experiment 4). Theoretical and legal implications are discussed.     

论禁止二重监督

作为完法确定的法律监督机关,人民检察院有权为了保护公共利益而对包括强制执行程序在内的诉讼活动进行监督。“禁止二重监督”理论是明确检察机关参与民事诉讼的应有方式和地位的理论依据。根据“禁止二重监督”理论,检察机关参加民事诉讼的法律地位是唯一的,要么是当事人（原告或被告）,要么是法律监督者;检察机关处于不同的法律地位时,享有不同的权利义务。在诉讼阶段,检察机关可以作为当事人提起公益诉讼或再审之诉,也可以以监督者身份参与诉讼;在执行阶段,检察机关可以作为申请执行人也可以对执行机构的裁决提出抗诉。