Unanimity and exposure in the EU Council of Ministers – or how the Dutch won and lost the ICTY debate

How are unanimity negotiations commonly settled in the EU Council of Ministers? Important contributions have been made to our understanding of the ‘consensual’ decision‐making dynamics in the Council, but most studies focus on explaining the sheer absence of votes in legislative decision making under the qualified majority rule. This study seeks to explain how vetoes are averted, or curtailed, in unanimity decision making. These unanimity negotiations are explained as attempts to induce or prevent high‐level exposure. The degree of exposure in turn depends on the degree of lower level contestation. A process tracing analysis of one prolonged debate is performed from the perspective of one Member State – the Netherlands – which played a very prominent obstructing role. By analysing when, why and where (at what level) the Dutch won or lost, one can come closer to understanding the dynamic interplay between the different Council levels.     

中国梦:凝聚改革共识的精神力量

历经30多年改革开放的伟大历程,中国在取得经济社会快速发展的巨大成就同时,也出现了改革共识"流失"的现实问题。尤其是利益主体多元化、价值观念差异化和政治认同多样化的发展趋势,已经成为凝聚新形势下改革共识的主要困境。中国梦,从其内涵实质看,它将当下建设与宏伟目标相结合、国家进步和个人发展相融合、中国繁荣与世界发展相统一,为深化改革辨清历史方位、指明前进方向、提供力量支撑、赢得国际支持,为凝聚更广泛更深刻的改革共识提供精神力量,有利于团结国人共赴民族伟大复兴新征程。     

从总干事的选任看WTO的决策机制

世界贸易组织协定规定了共识决策和表决决策两种方式,但实践中无论出现怎样的困难和僵局遵循的都是共识决策方式。前三次总干事的选任过程突出了共识决策在世界贸易组织中的地位和问题。共识决策式是关税与贸易总协定历史发展中逐渐演变形成的,为世界贸易组织所继承。共识决策式是一种比较现实的决策方式,能够比较好维护各成员的利益,但需要牺牲一定的效率为代价。     

论网络舆论监督

互联网的普及,正在改变着人们的生活方式,也包括政治生活方式。人民群众通过互联网了解国家事务,广泛、充分地交流和发表意见、建议,对国家政治、经济、法律、文化、教育、行政等活动进行褒贬与评价,是现代社会民主化发展进程的必然,是宪法赋予我国公民的基本权利。我们应当对网络舆论监督有个全面正确的认识,并且不断地进行规范和正确引导,使其规范和完善,建立起有利于网络舆论监督的制度与途径,使“互联网”成为实现政治民主、建设政治文明的最佳手段。     

数字治理时代的政治共识凝聚机制研究——以杭州市政协网络信息技术平台建设为例

政治共识的生产、凝聚与维护需要在民主制度、公共理性和政治认同的共同作用之下方能达成。政治共识的凝聚机制主要通过信息整合机制、协同合作机制、规则程序机制、理性沟通机制和话语框架机制的相互嵌入与影响,共同致力于制度共识、政策共识、价值共识的形成。政协作为专门协商机构,凝聚政治共识是其核心功能之一,数字治理时代需要建立完善的网络信息技术平台来保障政协凝聚共识功能的实现。政协内部及政协与政府部门、社会之间在网络信息技术平台上进行高效的信息整合与协同合作,建立科学的规则与程序,使委员们与社会各界代表可以进行理性沟通,形成政策共识。建立和传播更为合理有效的话语框架,有助于在社会范围内广泛形成价值共识和制度共识。     

Can't get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners,losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy

Are citizens in consensus democracies with developed direct democratic institutions more satisfied with their political system than those in majoritarian democracies? In this article, individual‐level data from the second wave of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems and an updated version of Lijphart's multivariate measure of consensus and majoritarian democracy covering 24 countries are used to investigate this question. The findings from logistic multilevel models indicate that consensual cabinet types and direct democratic institutions are associated with higher levels of citizens' satisfaction with democracy. Furthermore, consensus democracy in these institutions closes the gap in satisfaction with democracy between losers and winners of elections by both comforting losers and reducing the satisfaction of winners. Simultaneously, consensus democracy in terms of electoral rules, the executive–legislative power balance, interest groups and the party system reduces the satisfaction of election winners, but does not enhance that of losers.     

罗尔斯"重叠共识"视野下的马克思主义中国化

民主社会中总有宗教、哲学和道德等诸种学说,且这些学说观点不尽一致,甚至相互对峙、相互冲突、相互斗争。因而,为了寻求社会的稳定与和谐发展,就必须寻找这些学说的共识,即罗尔斯的重叠共识。重叠共识有利于社会的稳定、和谐与繁荣发展。当前,对于马克思中国化而言,形成某种重叠共识就迫切需要。可以说,马克思主义中国化就是中国重叠共识的理性选择,马克思主义时代化就是中国重叠共识的时代要求,马克思主义大众化就是中国重叠共识的群众基础。马克思主义中国化、时代化、大众化使中华民族不仅取得了新民主主义革命的胜利,取得了改革开放的巨大成就,而且仍将是中华民族实现伟大复兴的有力武器。     

RETHINKING DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RHETORIC

With its revival in recent years, rhetoric has provided a special perspective for modern people. If we take rhetoric as a framework to rethink democracy and rule of law, we may not only grasp a new understanding of them, but also gain more knowledge of the possible role of rhetoric in the contemporary world. We will find that rhetoric was closely related to democracy and rule of law, and is still fully accordant with ideas of democracy and rule of law in modern society. Moreover, rhetoric can provide intellectual support to these concepts.     

HOW COLLECTIVE IS COLLECTIVE EFFICACY? THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSENSUS IN JUDGMENTS ABOUT COMMUNITY COHESION AND WILLINGNESS TO INTERVENE

Existing studies have generally measured collective efficacy by combining survey respondents’ ratings of their local area into an overall summary for each neighborhood. Naturally, this approach results in a substantive focus on the variation in average levels of collective efficacy between neighborhoods. In this article, we focus on the variation in consensus of collective efficacy judgments. To account for differential consensus among neighborhoods, we use a mixed‐effects location‐scale model, with variability in the consensus of judgments treated as an additional neighborhood‐level random effect. Our results show that neighborhoods in London differ, not just in their average levels of collective efficacy but also in the extent to which residents agree with one another in their assessments. In accord with findings for U.S. cities, our results show that consensus in collective efficacy assessments is affected by the ethnic composition of neighborhoods. Additionally, we show that heterogeneity in collective efficacy assessments is consequential, with higher levels of criminal victimization, worry about crime, and risk avoidance behavior in areas where collective efficacy consensus is low.