Populist possibilities and political constraints in Mexico

This article defines populism (in Latin American context) as a form of politics that is based mainly upon a personalist appeal, attracts significant popular support and, if successful, significantly redesigns social or political institutions. Neopopulism is defined as a form of populism which begins outside the state as opposed to classic populism which originates within the state. The main theoretical argument is that the study of populism can be made significant for comparative politics if we emphasise the issue of institutional redesign and then conceptualise it in structure vs agency terms. The comparative question then becomes whether a particular set of political institutions is robust enough to withstand the challenge of a charismatic individual. The empirical background is that Latin America has seen a significant number of populist movements that have indeed fundamentally altered institutional structures. By the same token, there have been an even larger number of populist attempts which ultimately failed. Having made this point, the discussion then focuses on Mexico. It seeks to understand the different sets of conditions which allowed Lázaro Cárdenas to succeed as classic populist in the 1930s, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas to come close to success as a neopopulist in the 1980s and which greatly reduce the likelihood of successful neopopulism in the near future.     

村民与村民委员会冲突的司法救济问题

在村民自治实践中,村民与村民委员会不仅冲突不断,而且司法救济不畅,村民自治权成了司法救济的边缘领域。因此,完善村民与村委会自治冲突的诉讼救济机制,是实现村民自治健康有序运转不可或缺的重要保障。     

Dueling experts and imperfect verification

In the Dueling Experts Game, adversarial experts strategically produce “good” or “bad” evidence to support their partisan testimony. Good evidence is probative while bad evidence has no evidentiary value. The new feature of this Game is that Judge sometimes erroneously identifies good evidence as bad evidence and vice versa. Along the Game’s equilibrium path, each partisan expert produces only good evidence if it supports his side. When favorable good evidence is unavailable, an expert produces bad evidence to support his testimony. Hence, dueling experts always contradict one another. Despite their conflicting testimony, one of the experts invariably produces the available good evidence for Judge. Therefore, Judge always receives the available good evidence. A central result is that the quality of experts, including their ability to persuade judges using available good evidence, and the quality of judges – their ability to distinguish good from bad evidence – determine the accuracy of verdicts. Remarkably, the likelihood that experts are endowed with good evidence does not matter provided that this likelihood is not identically zero or one.     

论司法公正的内涵、本质及意义

司法公正是指在司法活动的过程和结果中坚持和体现公平与正义的原则，其本质是评价主体对司法是否能够满足社会成员的需要这种价值关系的反映与认识的观念性活动。当前，深化对司法公正问题的研究对促进社会安定有序、推动依法行政、确保市场经济健康发展及构建和谐社会具有重要的现实意义。     

网络舆论与法院审判之关系探讨

以网络舆论为代表的新生舆论势力对当今司法活动产生了巨大的影响,如何平衡公民的舆论自由与司法的独立原则之间的关系是本文探讨的核心内容。主要从保持司法独立,排除舆论不当干扰的角度出发,分析概括了舆论自由与审判独立的对立统一关系,列举研究了几种容易对司法审判活动产生不利影响的观念误区,重新定位了二者之间的关系。既要尊重公民的舆论监督权利,又要维护司法公正,就要正确引导网络舆论,使之着力影响政治决策和立法决策,而司法审判活动应绝对排除其干扰。     

未成年人犯罪领域的非犯罪化研究

在非犯罪化思潮影响之下，未成年人犯罪领域的非犯罪化趋势在我国已经有所体现，这是对未成年犯罪人司法保护的新突破。实现未成年人犯罪领域的非犯罪化具有重要的价值意义。在具体制度建构上，可以在实体法上减少未成年人罪名规定或规定未成年人特殊情形；在司法程序上，则应建立未成年人刑事和解和不起诉制度。     

司法经验的传承与发展

全国法院学术讨论会的获奖论文蕴含着丰富的司法经验，为分析中国司法经验的传承与发展提供了极具价值的样本。中国司法经验的传承和发展，大致分为以发现问题为重心的征集“立法类经验”、以理论突围为特征的总结“理论性经验”和以经验反思为主旨的发展“应用型经验”等三个阶段。其成就主要表现为充分展现了案件审判经验、广泛汇集了司法工作经验，并逐步统一了理念认知经验。按照事实是否清楚、法律是否规定和严格适用法律是否合理三个要素，所有案件可以划分为由六类基本案件组成的九类案件，中国司法的基本经验为所有这些案件提供了相应的解决方案。“休谟难题”、“地方性知识”、“个性化实践”和“法官裁量权膨胀”的疑虑，与中国司法经验传承和发展的收益相比，都显得微不足道。司法经验具有广阔的发展前景，只不过中国司法经验的传承和发展应当根据经验的类型分别采取相应的具体方案。     

论抗诉监督与审判独立之问的冲突与协调

检察院的抗诉监督和法院的审判独立均是中国司法体制的重要组成部分,二者互为损益,存在不可避免的冲突关系。检察院与法院从维护和扩张本部门权益的角度出发,在此问题上形成相互对立的观点。其实抗诉监督与审判独立二者之间存在内在的一致性,这也是二者得以和谐共存的基础。我国人民代表大会制度决定了审判独立必然需要接受检察监督。但检察监督对审判权实施监督是有限度的,即抗诉监督不得损害审判独立。     

试论我国宪法进入诉讼的必然性

在依法治国的今天 ,迫切需要将宪法引入诉讼 ,建立宪法诉讼制度 ,做到真正依法治国。宪法进入诉讼是宪法法律性的必然结果和司法实践的需要 ,是违宪审查制度建立的前提。我国宪法不进入诉讼无据可查 ,根据宪法自身的特征 ,其也具有进入诉讼的可行性。     

试论网络舆论监督与司法公正的关系

伴随着科技进步与社会主义法治文明的发展,我国的各类舆论媒体对社会问题的关注也越来越执著,尤其是对司法审判的透视与监督。而新兴的网络在此"浪潮"中发挥着不可替代的作用,向世人宣示着自我独有的功效。然而,也不乏一些负面作用,给司法审判造成了不应有的影响和压力,所以如何权衡二者的价值,是摆在我们面前的重要课题。