检察权谦抑性的法理基础

刑事诉讼中的检察权行使,要尽可能地保持克制、妥协、宽容,这就是检察权的谦抑性.检察权的谦抑性是受刑事诉讼法学、刑法学、犯罪社会学和刑事政策学等学科理论和实践发展的深刻影响而形成的.检察权行使的谦抑性最终要由具体的检察官来体现和贯彻,因此,一方面要从立法上人手;另一方面,要通过培养心怀谦抑的检察官入手,从而使刑事法的谦抑理念与检察官内在的谦抑品性相协调.     

Supporting political debate while building patterns of trust: the role of the German political foundations in Tunisia (1989–2017)

This article focuses on a specific aspect of the international context surrounding the Tunisian transition to democracy. Through the case of the German political foundations in Tunisia, this study argues that the country’s journey to democracy has not been an exclusively domestic affair, but has also been the product of the engagement of international actors and their interplay with domestic groups. Building on evidence from semi-structured interviews and data triangulation the article shows that since the late 1980s four German political foundations operating in Tunisia created platforms for ‘political debate’ – alternative to the regime’s but not subversive – and encouraged political training. The article posits that initially the German political foundations helped Ben Ali’s regime in the making of a ‘façade liberalisation’, while in the long run their activities generated unintended consequences that in part undermined its ‘authoritarianism upgraded’. The article demonstrates that their longstanding presence on the ground allowed the German political foundations to develop patterns of trust with and between political and civil groups, ultimately improving the capacity of their action after the revolution.     

社会工作的四个传统哲理基础

哲理基础是社会工作知识体系的基石,不同哲理基础决定着人们以相异的角度去看待社会工作理论和实践.最近20年来,社会工作的哲理基础逐步形成了四个传统:(1)实证传统.它坚信社会工作知识应建立在科学方法基础之上并强调证据为本的实践,这是社会工作哲理基础的主流;(2)人本传统.这一传统从完整的人的观点理解人与环境的互动、尊重个人对自己经历的理解和拥有的改变潜力,包括存在主义社会工作和灵性视角;(3)激进传统.它主张从结构的层面推进社会变迁并批评现存的社会秩序,包括结构视角、赋权视角和女性主义社会工作;(4)社会建构传统.这一传统强调知识是社会建构的,变化的动力来自发现、讲述新的故事或探索案主的优势,优势视角、叙事治疗和寻解治疗是这一传统下的实践理论范例.     

Between ‘Objectivism’ and ‘Contextualism': the Normative Foundations of Social Philosophy

Abstract

One of the principal challenges facing contemporary social philosophy is how to find foundations that are normatively robust yet congruent with its self-understanding. Social philosophy is a critical project within modernity, an interpretative horizon that stresses the influences of history and context on knowledge and experience. However, if it is to engage in intercultural dialogue and normatively robust social critique, social philosophy requires non-arbitrary, universal normative standards. The task of normative foundations can thus be formulated in terms of negotiating the tension between ‘contextualism’ and ‘objectivism’. Six contemporary responses to this challenge are examined. Their respective limitations call for renewed reflection on justificatory strategies, in particular for a conception of ‘objectivity’ based in a normative theory of social learning processes.     

President or Predator? The Social Construction of Donald Trump in a Divided America

ABSTRACT

During the presidential election, numerous women accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment and/or assault. Then a presidential candidate, he denied these complaints and said the women were all untruthful – a position he has continued to espouse. To explore “who the public believes,” we commissioned YouGov to conduct an opt-in online survey of a national sample of 1,000 Americans. Notably, half of Americans (51.0%) believed that “the women are telling the truth when they reported that Mr. Trump sexually harassed or assaulted them” versus 23.1% who sided with the president. Nearly two-thirds (64.9%) stated that it was unlikely that all the women were lying, and 3 in 5 Americans (60.5%) supported President Trump’s impeachment by the U.S. Congress if these accusations could be proven. Informed by research on political psychology (especially Haidt’s The Righteous Mind), the data are explored to see why Americans embrace divergent moral narratives – with some seeing Mr. Trump as a truthful president and others seeing him as a predator unworthy of the office he holds.     

物权法定原则否认论略

物权法定原则在当代社会,尤其是在我国,人们赋予其上的诸多功能或者说其理论基础,并不具有或已经丧失。多元化的物权公示原则构成了对物权法定原则的致命的突破点。通过对物权法定原则的诸多功能的剥离、返还、替代和转换,可以取消之,代之以一个以物权公示原则为中心的物权法体系。     

The New Era of Stakeholder Engagement: Gaining,Maintaining, and Repairing Legitimacy in Nonprofit Organizations

The need for nonprofits to foster legitimacy within their communities has led to growing calls for mechanisms of sound governance based on the engagement of stakeholders in organizational activities. Previous studies have investigated the mix of governance mechanisms used by nonprofits to manage legitimacy, without paying attention to the different challenges of legitimacy these organizations face. Aiming to fill this gap, this article employs a multiple case study methodology to explore how mechanisms for engaging stakeholders in governance can be shaped by the need to gain, maintain, or repair legitimacy. The findings show that formal mechanisms based on the direct designation of board members by local stakeholders play a pivotal role in repairing legitimacy. Gaining legitimacy requires actual participation of stakeholders, while maintaining legitimacy calls for formal mechanisms that balance representativeness and competencies of the leadership.     

Grantmaking in a Disorderly World: The Limits of Rationalism

This article reflects on the real world relevance of rational approaches to grantmaking. The characteristics and environment of foundation work are outlined, then both traditional and newer funding practices are analysed. Unpacking implicit assumptions of a rational approach, eight costs to foundations and their grantees are identified. The final sections of the paper consider what grantmaking for a complex and disorderly world might encompass. In conclusion, while rational approaches to grantmaking provide a comfortable aura of certainty, funders need to adapt to a little discomfort.     

Speaking Different Languages or Reading From the Same Script? Word Usage of Democratic and Republican Politicians

Words are believed to be indicators of the values that are important to politicians and an impressive amount of empirical research has analyzed variations in language use. While it is generally accepted that there are value differences between Democrats and Republicans, the extent to which these differences are reflected in word usage has been theorized but is largely untested. The connection between values and language is, theoretically, not limited just to politicians, but should be especially evident among politicians as representatives of existing ideological poles. In this article, we examine elite rhetoric through the lens of four value-centered theoretical frameworks (Lakoff’s Parenting Styles model, Moral Foundations Theory, Schwartz’s Values Theory, and Motivated Social Cognition Theory). Contrary to the expectations posited by these four theories, we find little reliable evidence of value-related language differences between Democratic and Republican politicians. Our findings suggest that, at least when it comes to elite rhetoric, widely accepted theoretical claims about the value-based nature of political language and political differences are not consistently supported by empirical analysis.     

司法工作人员与无身份者共同实施真正身份犯的共犯成立类型

根据共犯处罚根据论中的修正的惹起说,以及对实行行为的实质理解,在无身份者参与司法工作人员实施的真正身份犯的犯罪行为的场合,无身份者不仅可以构成教唆犯或者帮助犯,而且还可以构成共同正犯。甚至无身份者还完全可以利用司法工作人员实施犯罪,构成真正身份犯的间接正犯,不过这种场合下司法工作人员不构成犯罪,二者不再构成共同犯罪。在司法工作人员参与无身份者实施的真正身份犯的犯罪行为时,司法工作人员只能构成间接正犯,而不能构成教唆犯,无身份者只能构成帮助犯,不能构成实行犯。