德国近五十年刑事立法述评

自1969年德国刑法大改革至今的五十年间,德国的刑事立法活动非常频繁。在此期间,德国立法机关不但对《刑法典》总则犯罪论部分的规定进行了彻底的修订,而且针对犯罪的法律后果以及刑法分则乃至附属刑法中的诸多罪名进行了持续的改革,在恐怖主义犯罪、妨害公务犯罪、毒品犯罪以及保安监禁等领域尤其如此。整体而言,德国立法者在过往半个世纪中日趋侧重功能主义的积极刑事立法观,导致德国刑法逐步从传统法治国背景下的法益保护法和市民防御法转向以社会控制为主导的国家干预法和社会防卫法,造成了诸多难以与现有法律体系和学说理论相协调的象征性立法。我国应当从德国近五十年的刑事立法中吸收其先进经验,对其中的弊端也要引以为戒。     

宪法与民法典关系的四个理论问题

从宪法角度和法律三元分类角度看,民法典将基本民事主体表述为"公民"比表述为"自然人"更合适。各国宪法差异决定中国民法典表述基本民事主体不能复制德国民法典的规定。就性质而言,民事主体内部关系的内容是权利与权利,应避免使用"权力"之类术语来定义其内部组织或描述其功能。在数字化时代,民法典应着力保障在数字化背景下备受威胁的个人隐私权,促进民事主体实质性享有平等的发展权利,但不宜承担公法功能。     

The unseen hands: Collaborative instrumental leadership in the British renegotiation case

The article contends that an important but overlooked explanation for the European Union's resilience in the past decade in the face of several existential crises has been the informal instrumental leadership roles played by EU institutional actors collaborating with each other. In this article, a theoretical framework is developed that can explain why EU governments, facing a crisis, would choose to informally delegate leadership tasks to a set of EU institutional actors. A three-part mechanism of collaborative instrumental leadership provided by institutions is devised that explains why governments informally delegate leadership tasks to EU institutions, and the effects of this informal delegation. The core of the article is a process-tracing case study that explores how collaborative instrumental leadership actually works. The case selected is the British renegotiation of their terms of membership in 2015–2016. While the case has become more-or-less forgotten because the shock ‘no’ vote in the June 2016 Brexit referendum made its terms moot, the deal included quite exceptional reform proposals in which the EU bent over backwards to accommodate the United Kingdom, perhaps even going beyond the bounds of the EU Treaties themselves in the issue of immigration. Given this, analysing how collaborative instrumental leadership supplied by institutions contributed to producing the ambitious deal can shed light on the processes whereby intractable problems in the EU have been solved in the past decade.     

《民法典（草案）》的土地经营权规定应实质性修改

“三权分置”是中央农村土地制度改革的重大决策部署。《民法典(草案)》近日公开征求意见,将于2020年3月提交全国人大审议通过。其在“物权编”简单移植了《农村土地承包法》土地经营权的个别条文,解决了土地经营权定性不明的问题,但使《农村土地承包法》的逻辑紊乱、利益失衡、无法放活经营权等问题进一步固化、显化,亟待作出实质性修改。其进一步修改应以实现“放活经营权”改革目标为基本遵循,坚守“物债二分”基本理论,充分尊重中国实际,切实维护农民利益。     

“放管服”改革的行政法意义及其完善

与先前行政审批制度改革相比,党的十八大以来大力推进的"放管服"改革更加强调权力调整的动态性、整体性、系统性,其对于优化政府职责、转变监管方式、深入推进国家治理体系和能力现代化具有明显的积极意义。但此轮"放管服"改革依然沿袭了行政审批制度改革的运动化、政策化思路,并不完全符合法治政府建设的基本要求。从职权法定、监管工具的动态调整、优化公共服务的基本法则三个方面,"放管服"改革的行政法意义和合法性风险可以得到更加清晰的呈现。要提升"放管服"改革的法治品性,需要以《行政许可法》的有效实施为核心,通过设立专门的社会化的"放管服"改革委员会、激活行政许可评价制度、引入更广泛的专家和社会参与、完善试验改革的授权制度、优化规制工具分析评价制度几个方面来实现。     

《民法典》中真实物权的判断标准

《民法典》物权编对真实物权设立了三种判断标准,即公示标准、事实标准和意思标准。基于绝对权的定位,通常以法定公示机制展示的物权为真实物权,此即公示标准,但这种标准并不唯一。在法律有特别规定的情形,征收等直接导致物权变动的客观事实能成为真实物权的判断标准,此即事实标准,与该事实不符的公示是错误的,公示的权利不是真实物权。此外,在法律允许的情况下,土地承包合同等当事人的合意也能成为真实物权的判断标准,此即意思标准,在不涉及第三人时,应按照意思标准而非公示标准来判断真实物权。     

价值共创:公共服务合作生产的新趋势

合作生产是一种重要的公共服务生产模式,在提高公共部门回应性和推动公共服务创新方面发挥了重要作用。面对解决"棘手问题"的挑战,复杂的外部治理环境催生了对公共行政价值问题的反思,合作生产不仅要关注行政效率的提升,也要重视以公民为中心的多元价值创造。在此情境下,公共服务合作生产向价值共创转变。本文梳理了不同时期的公共行政理论对合作生产的影响,对合作生产概念的演变与发展进行了探讨,阐释了从合作生产发展为价值共创的内在逻辑。在此基础上,本文分析了理解价值共创的三种理论路径,并结合我国公共服务发展的现实背景,讨论了公共服务价值共创的启示。     

Hurdles to peace: a level-of-analysis approach to resolving Sudan’s civil wars

Why do some peace agreements end armed conflicts whereas others do not? Previous studies have primarily focused on the relation between warring parties and the provisions included in peace agreements. Prominent mediators, however, have emphasised the importance of stakeholders at various levels for the outcome of peace agreements. To match the experience of these negotiators we apply a level-of-analysis approach to examine the contextual circumstances under which peace agreements are concluded. While prominent within the causes of war literature, level-of-analysis approaches are surprisingly scant in research about conflict resolution. This article compares two Sudanese Peace Agreements: the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005) that ended the North–South war and led to the independence of South Sudan, and the Darfur Peace Agreement (2006) which failed to end fighting in Darfur. We find that factors at the local, national and international level explain the different outcomes of the two agreements. Hence, the two case studies illustrate the merit of employing a level-of-analysis approach to study the outcome of peace agreements. The main contribution of this article is that it presents a new theoretical framework to understand why some peace agreements terminate armed conflict whereas others do not.     

Can the Boundary Commissions Help the Conservative Party? Constituency Size and Electoral Bias in the United Kingdom

As part of a strategy to remove perceived biases operating against it in the system used for elections to the House of Commons, the British Conservative party is promoting a revision of the rules used by the Boundary Commissions to ensure greater equality in constituency electorates. A Bill designed to achieve this—and also to reduce the size of the House—was introduced to the House of Lords in 2007. This paper critiques that Bill and suggests an alternative formulation that would better achieve the goal, whilst identifying a number of operational difficulties that its implementation would involve.     

民法总则民商主体界分的制度缺陷与完善思路

民法总则关于民商主体界分的整体制度设计因自然人与法人的不同而分别遵循了不同的逻辑标准,但都直接体现或隐含了“营利性目的”的内涵。民法总则民商主体界分制度在概念使用和标准贯彻上存在逻辑缺陷,进而导致实践中可能面临诸多难题。可行的完善思路是对商自然人的主体制度建构采取由基本法确立营业权和由单行法规定具体规则的方式;用“组织”作为主体概念统领“法人”和“非法人组织”;将商组织的具体制度纳入民法典专编或者商事基本法加以规定,并且在民商主体界分时采取法律判定与事实判定相结合的模式。