论听证笔录在行政决定中的法律效力

听证制度是现代行政程序法的核心制度,而听证笔录的法律效力又是听证制度的关键所在。案卷排他性原则的确立,使得听证笔录成为作出行政决定的唯一依据。案卷排他性原则的确立具有重要的意义,对行政机关和行政相对人产生新的要求。禁止单方面接触规则和官方认知原则是对案卷排他性原则的补充与修正。     

Influence of WTO decisions on international intellectual property

Legal context: The task of harmonization in the IP framework is currently atrisk. This conclusion is shown by the way EU Member States have recentlyenacted Directive 2001/29 on the harmonization of certain aspectsof copyright and related rights on the information society.Particularly, no Member State seems to have considered the interpretationof the three-step test of the Berne Convention given in 2000by the WTO panel, notwithstanding its importance. Moreover, three recent opinions of the French Cour de Cassation,the French Conseil Constitutionnel, and the German Federal Courtof Justice appear not to have endorsed the WTO's interpretationof the three-step test. This scenario confirms the impressionthat the international framework is devoid of any degree ofharmonization. Key points: Although the aims of certainty and predictability in the internationaltrading system are among its main tasks, the World Trade Organizationhas not yet tackled the plight of harmonization, preferringa political approach to smooth conflicts and disputes. Yet,the World Trade Organization has recently taken important stepsthat seem to herald a new attitude. In United States—Sections301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, the World Trade Organizationdismissed the traditional deference towards national legislations.In addition, at international and national levels, the AlleghenyLudlum and Softwood Lumber cases aligned their interpretationsto that of the World Trade Organization.     

关于行政复议决定履行争议的思考——写在《行政复议法》修订之际

行政复议决定本身的合法性、合理性以及行政复议决定的有效履行是行政复议制度不断完善和发展的基点.通过对某卫生行政复议履行争议案例的评析,对目前司法合法性审查不介入行政复议决定履行的做法提出商榷,指出行政复议履行争议实质是被申请人依法履职争议,强调职权法定是判断行政机关是否依法履职的基本原则,分析行政复议决定不履行或者不完...     

司法判决理由的法律解释的不足与完善建议

司法判决理由是司法权合理化最重要的指标,也是法官思维水平的最典型表现。作为证明司法结果正当性的关键因素,法官的法律解释构成了司法判决理由不可或缺的组成部分,理应在司法判决中得以充分展示。为了改变我国判决书中法律解释状况薄弱、判决理由不充分的局面,科学合理地写明法官对案件事实和适用法律的解释状况就势在必行。     

Do a Law’s Policy Implications Affect Beliefs About Its Constitutionality? An Experimental Test

Although a substantial empirical literature has found associations between judges' political orientation and their judicial decisions, the nature of the relationship between policy preferences and constitutional reasoning remains unclear. In this experimental study, law students were asked to determine the constitutionality of a hypothetical law, where the policy implications of the law were manipulated while holding all legal evidence constant. The data indicate that, even with an incentive to select the ruling best supported by the legal evidence, liberal participants were more likely to overturn laws that decreased taxes than laws that increased taxes. The opposite pattern held for conservatives. The experimental manipulation significantly affected even those participants who believed their policy preferences had no influence on their constitutional decisions.     

The Reasonable Woman Standard: Effects on Sexual Harassment Court Decisions

Some federal courts have used a reasonable woman standard rather than the traditional reasonable man or reasonable person standard to determine whether hostile environment sexual harassment has occurred. The current research examined the impact of the reasonable woman standard on federal district court decisions, controlling for other factors found to affect sexual harassment court decisions. Results indicated that there was a weak relationship between whether a case followed a reasonable woman precedent-setting case and the likelihood that the court decision favored the plaintiff. The implications of our findings for individuals and organizations involved in sexual harassment claims are discussed.     

Stealing Thunder as a Courtroom Tactic Revisited: Processes and Boundaries

Stealing thunder refers to a dissuasion tactic in which an individual reveals potentially incriminating evidence first, for the purpose of reducing its negative impact on an evaluative audience. We examined whether it was necessary to frame the negative revelation in a manner that downplayed its importance, and found that stealing thunder successfully dissuaded mock jurors even without framing. We also sought to determine the mechanism by which stealing thunder operated, and found that stealing thunder led mock jurors to change the meaning of incriminating evidence to be less damaging to the individual. We also found that stealing thunder's effectiveness did not hinge on whether or not opposing counsel also mentioned the thunder evidence, and that the stealing thunder tactic was no longer effective when opposing counsel revealed to the mock jurors that the stealing thunder tactic had been used on them.     

Leaving Homelessness Behind: Housing Decisions Among Families Exiting Shelter

Because homelessness assistance programs are designed to help families, it is important for policymakers and practitioners to understand how families experiencing homelessness make housing decisions, particularly when they decide not to use available services. This study explores those decisions using in-depth qualitative interviews with 80 families recruited in shelters across four sites approximately six months after they were assigned to one of four conditions (permanent housing subsidies, project-based transitional housing, community-based rapid re-housing, or usual care). Familiar neighborhoods near children's schools, transportation, family and friends, and stability were important to families across conditions. Program restrictions on eligibility constrained family choices. Subsidized housing was the most desired intervention, and families leased up at higher rates than in other studies of poor families. Respondents were least comfortable in and most likely to leave transitional housing. Uncertainty associated with community-based rapid re-housing generated considerable anxiety. Across interventions, many families had to make unhappy compromises, often leading to further moves. Policy recommendations are offered.     

Long-term recidivism of mental health court defendants

The first MHC was established in 1997 and now, over 15 years later, there are over 300 mental health courts in the United States. In a relatively short time these courts have become an established criminal justice intervention for persons with a mental illness. However, few studies have looked at the long-term outcomes of MHCs on criminal recidivism. Of the studies evaluating the impact of MHCs on criminal recidivism, most follow defendants after entry into the court during their participation, and only a few have followed defendants after court exit for periods of one or two years. This study follows MHC defendants for a minimum of five years to examine recidivism post-exit with particular attention to MHC completion's effect. Findings show that 53.9% of all MHC defendants were rearrested in the follow-up and averaged 15 months to rearrest. Defendants who completed MHC were significantly less likely to be rearrested (39.6% vs. 74.8%), and went longer before recidivating (17.15 months vs. 12.27 months) than those who did not complete. This study suggests that MHCs can reduce criminal recidivism among offenders with mental illness and that this effect is sustained for several years after defendants are no longer under the court's supervision.