“不确定”时代国际安全的“确定性”重塑

国家始终面临着如何实现国际安全的难题，因而也向来偏好于获得地区与国际环境中的“确定性”。不过，这通常会面临地区与国际形势演进“常态性”及由此带来的“不确定性”的影响，而在“不确定”时代，这则会体现得更为明显。“不确定”时代的“不确定”实际上表现为全球治理的“失序”，主要呈现在国际经济层面的保护主义、国际政治层面的保守主义、社会层面的民粹主义与国际安全制度性安排的“滞后”等诸方面。这些“不确定”因素深刻作用于国际安全的“确定性”本质，在影响国家实现国际安全的“自助性”和国家间安全关系的同时，更使国际体系的“确定性”难有保证。因此，重塑国际安全并不能囿于哪一个范式的解释，它是一项系统的、复杂的国际战略议程，在重塑国际安全进程中依赖于经济领域开放、互惠互利的地区与全球秩序的建立，依托于全球范围内“积极有为”国际安全理念的共享，依靠于国际安全治理制度的“与时俱进”。而在国际安全实践中，中国与东盟国家共同维护南海安全进程中所体现的安全实现路径则为在“不确定”时代重塑国际安全“确定性”提供了一个经验性验证。     

法律之道：在确定性与灵活性之间

一方面,人们对法律的确定性抱有极大的期待,希望以此获得共同生活秩序的安宁;而另一方面,在法律的制度实践中,人们也始终追求着法律的灵活性,以实现公平正义。这不仅是法律自身发展的历史图像,而且也是人类的法律思想成长的历史图像。在确定性需求与灵活性需求的不断碰撞和妥协中,人类社会的法律制度中普遍形成了一种可以应对社会生活复杂性与变化性的＂适应性机制＂。     

DOES WHAT POLICE DO AT HOT SPOTS MATTER? THE PHILADELPHIA POLICING TACTICS EXPERIMENT*

Policing tactics that are proactive, focused on small places or groups of people in small places, and tailor specific solutions to problems using careful analysis of local conditions seem to be effective at reducing violent crime. But which tactics are most effective when applied at hot spots remains unknown. This article documents the design and implementation of a randomized controlled field experiment to test three policing tactics applied to small, high‐crime places: 1) foot patrol, 2) problem‐oriented policing, and 3) offender‐focused policing. A total of 81 experimental places were identified from the highest violent crime areas in Philadelphia (27 areas were judged amenable to each policing tactic). Within each group of 27 areas, 20 places were randomly assigned to receive treatment and 7 places acted as controls. Offender‐focused sites experienced a 42 percent reduction in all violent crime and a 50 percent reduction in violent felonies compared with their control places. Problem‐oriented policing and foot patrol did not significantly reduce violent crime or violent felonies. Potential explanations of these findings are discussed in the contexts of dosage, implementation, and hot spot stability over time.     

论法律形式合理性的十个问题

法律制度的理性化表现在两个方面,一为实质合理化,一为形式合理化。法治原则在司法领域必然意味着形式合理性的优先,即,在司法过程中,当个案处理结果的实质合理性与法律本身的形式合理性可以两全时,司法者应当而且必须兼顾这两种价值,在司法裁判中同时实现个案中的实质合理性与法律的形式合理性;然而,当实质合理性与形式合理性发生不可两全的矛盾而不得不有所牺牲时,司法裁判则应当以优先实现形式合理性为原则,以牺牲形式合理性为例外。无论是对于持有社会本位价值观念的人们而言,还是对于持有个人本位价值观念的人们而言,只要他们遵循理性的指引来选择达成目的的手段,以优先实现形式合理性为原则、以牺牲形式合理性为例外的司法公正,都是唯一合理的选项。     

The enhanced cognitive interview: expressions of uncertainty,motivation and its relation with report accuracy

The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI) is one of the most widely studied and used methods to interview witnesses. However, ECI research has mainly focused on increasing report size and somewhat overlooked how to improve and evaluate report accuracy. No study evaluated if witnesses’ spontaneous expressions of uncertainty are accurate metacognitive judgments, nor if witnesses’ motivation during the interview affects report accuracy. This study examined how witnesses’ judgments of recall ‘uncertainty’ and their motivation perception could relate to report accuracy. Forty-four psychology students watched a mock robbery video recording and were interviewed 48 hours later with either the Portuguese version of the ECI or a Structured Interview (SI). Afterward, participants’ motivation was assessed and items of information were classified as ‘certainties’ or ‘uncertainties’. Results suggest that our ECI protocol was effective, since participants interviewed with the ECI produced more information without compromising accuracy. ‘Uncertainties’ were less accurate than ‘certainties’, and their exclusion raised overall, ECI, and SI, accuracy. More motivated participants had better recall accuracy. Accounting for witnesses’ motivation and spontaneous verbal expressions of uncertainty may be effective and time-saving procedures to increase accuracy. These are key points that professionals and researchers should consider.     

Special Emphasis: Agenda‐Setting Research—20 Year Birthday

“Special Emphasis: Agenda‐Setting Research—20 Year Birthday,” Journalism Quarterly, 69, 4 (Winter 1992), 813–920.     

开放的事实——并及我国《刑事诉讼法》的修订问题

在西方,尽管自中世纪以来人们就已经意识到司法过程中的事实根本上是一个裁量的问题,但直到现实主义法学的勃兴,这种认识方始成为一种普遍的社会共识。然而,迄今为止,包括现实主义法学在内的各种理论似乎都没有从逻辑上对事实的自由裁量本质展开系统的分析、证成。艾柯的"开放的作品"理论为这项任务的完成提供了足够的启示:之所以事实具有自由裁量的本质,就在于它是一种彻底的开放的作品。对这一结论的证成,除了有利于澄清理论上的相关争议外,也为我国刑事诉讼立法提供了一个反思和进一步完善的支点。     

国际私法法律选择的法理学思考——以"贝考克诉杰克逊案"为例

本文以美国纽约州上诉法院"贝考克诉杰克逊案"为例,就有关侵权损害法律选择进行讨论,对最密切联系原则替代侵权行为地法这一过程背后的基本原因和这一过程中法律精神与法律形式、法律的确定性与准确性、建构理性主义与进化理性主义之间的关系等问题进行探讨,以此说明在立法中绝对的确定性和一致性并不一定是理性在法律建构中的必然和最佳的选择,相反,在许多规范中保持一定的弹性才是一种更好的选择.     

在多元哲学景象中寻求确定性立场

当代中国哲学舞台,前现代、现代、后现代哲学集结,中、西、马哲学并存,由此构成了当代哲学发展的多元复合背景。由于哲学家缺乏整合的能力与自觉,哲学的多元景象并没有转化为促进哲学繁荣的条件和前提,从而引发了哲学理解及方向上的不确定性。应有的确定性立场是哲学的综合化、中国化、实践化。