Examining the good lives model and antisocial behaviour

This study examined the utility of the Good Lives Model (GLM) (Ward, T., &; Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(4), 353–360. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.34.4.353) in understanding offending behaviour in students. Two hypotheses were made, consistent with the assumptions of the GLM. First, that participants would endorse the importance of the primary goods set out in the GLM. Second, that reports of antisocial behaviour would relate to a lack of effective strategies, or use of maladaptive strategies, to achieve primary goods. Participants (n?=?340, M age?=?20 years) completed a questionnaire (Measure of Life Priorities) assessing their pursuit, valuation, and achievement of the primary human goods as set out in the GLM and a Self-Report of Offending questionnaire. Results supported our hypotheses, and subsequently the assumptions of the GLM. Our findings support the continued use of the GLM as a theoretical and treatment oriented framework in diverse groups engaged in offending behaviour. Future research should continue to ground the GLM in empirical support.     

Funding Global Public Goods: The Dark Side of Multilateralism

The funding of global public goods, such as climate mitigation, presents a complex strategic problem. Potential recipients demand side payments for implementing projects that furnish global public goods, and donors can cooperate to provide the funding. We offer a game‐theoretic analysis of this problem. In our model, a recipient demands project funding. Donors can form a multilateral program to jointly fund the project. If no program is formed, bilateral funding remains a possibility. We find that donors rely on multilateralism if their preferences are relatively symmetric and domestic political constraints on funding are lax. In this case, the recipient secures large rents from project implementation. Thus, even donors with strong interests in global public good provision have incentives to oppose institutional arrangements that promote multilateral funding. These incentives have played an important role in multilateral negotiations on climate finance, especially in Cancun (2010) and Durban (2011).     

Understanding European asylum cooperation under the Schengen/Dublin system: a public goods framework

Abstract

Recent developments in European Union (EU) asylum cooperation raise important questions about the nature of cooperation and the potential problems facing collective action in the realm of EU internal security. The emergence and the subsequent stability of the Schengen/Dublin system is especially puzzling, given the highly inequitable distribution of costs and benefits that this system entails among the participating states and begs the question as to why those states that are likely to face a disproportionate ‘burden’ under the system would have agreed to it. This article seeks to provide an alternative approach to answering this question by drawing on a public goods framework. We argue that a simple focus on free-riding and exploitation dynamics, as emphasized in the traditional collective action literature, falls short as an explanation and instead demonstrates how more recent theoretical contributions to the public goods literature can offer new insights into the origin and evolution in cooperation in this sensitive policy area.     

China in the context of globalization

Although this paper challenges the standard viewpoint that foreign direct investment actually occurred in colonial times it also finds parallels with today’s international finance. Evidence shows that the reverse flow of funds was infinitely much greater than possible foreign investment for at least one colony, the Netherlands East Indies (colonial Indonesia). We calculate for the late colonial period (1880–1939) out of its total colonial surplus at least US$430 billion in today’s terms (about three-quarters of the total) was available for investment. This was far in excess of actual investment. Less than one-third of the available for investment went to colonial Indonesia and a further one-third was invested in other countries. The remainder is attributed to investment in the Netherlands (mainly portfolio), investment by non-Dutch corporations and to some statistical errors and omissions. Furthermore, we indicate their actual vital function within the global economic and financial organisation of the Netherlands in late colonial times. The probability of similar occurrences today is raised.     

公共物品的多元化供给

传统公共物品理论认为 ,公共物品只能由政府提供 ,但这样的单一模式却导致了不断膨胀的财政支出 ,财政负担的加重又成为经济进一步发展的障碍。因此 ,探讨公共物品供给的多元化模式是必要的。基于此 ,本文分析了公共物品供给的权威型供给、商业型供给和自主型供给模式     

跨境电信诈骗案件侦查取证问题研究

跨境犯罪是当前重特大电信诈骗的趋势和特点,它呈现出作案人与被害人、行为地与结果地相分离的情况,给案侦工作带来极大困难。以信息流和资金流为主要取证渠道的双向侦查应当成为侦查重点。要准确把握人证、物证、书证、视频资料、电子证据等形态的基本特性,从信息流查证、资金流查证、网络痕迹查证及服务器监控等方面获取和固定犯罪证据,同时要根据境外窝点的特征精确认定窝点现场,并依据一定的操作规程有效取证。     

中国政府公共产品供给的国际比较研究

中国政府公共产品供给的国际比较研究具有重要的理论与实践意义。进行中国政府公共产品供给的国际比较研究 ,首先要建立科学全面的政府公共产品供给指标体系。根据政府公共产品供给指标体系 ,我们可以对中国政府公共产品供给的状况进行国际比较 ,由此评估中国政府公共产品的现状与不足之处 ,并提出科学的行政改革措施。中国的行政改革应该重在提高政府公共产品水平 ,使政府能以充足优质的公共服务满足社会公共需求。     

人体死后肝细胞DNA含量与死亡时间关系的研究

目的研究人体死后肝脏细胞DNA含量变化与死亡时间的关系及影响因素。方法选取46例已知死亡时间的人体肝脏,根据离体肝脏所处的环境温度分为12—19％（A组）和20—27％（B组）两组,每组23例。在死后24～72h内每隔4h穿刺取肝组织1次,制成细胞悬液,经RNA酶消化,PI染色后,用流式细胞仪测定被检测细胞中含不完整DNA的细胞数所占百分比,所得数据经Exp032V1．2软件计算N值。结果死后24～72h肝细胞N平均值,A组从10．91％增至49．72％,B组从16．22％增至69．63％。两组N平均值随死亡时间的延长均逐渐增高,与死亡时间有相关性,A组r值为：0．598,B组r值为0．77357。并且建立了不同环境温度对应的回归方程。结论在不同环境温度下,死后24～72h内人体肝脏细胞DNA降解均随死亡时间的延长和环境温度的升高而逐渐加快,相关数据可望为死亡时间推断提供一定参考依据。     

承运人责任基础的新构建——评《鹿特丹规则》下承运人责任基础条款

《鹿特丹规则》有关承运人责任基础的规定,从性质上说,应当属于《汉堡规则》的完全过错责任制,从举证责任的分配分析,更接近于《海牙规则》,从结构的特点看,《鹿特丹规则》用举证责任的归属贯穿责任基础始终。其基本构成是:管货义务、除外风险和适航义务实行不同的举证责任分配,达到三个推定的目的,既体现过错责任制度,又平衡了船货双方的利益。     

解读《最高人民法院关于审理无正本提单交付货物案件适用法律若干问题的规定》

在中国海事审判中,无正本提单交付货物纠纷案件呈逐年上升趋势。由于《中华人民共和国海商法》关于提单以及提单项下货物交付的规定比较原则,造成审理无正本提单交付货物纠纷法律适用方面的困难。为解决海事审判中出现的法律适用方面问题,根据《中华人民共和国海商法》《中华人民共和国合同法》《中华人民共和国民法通则》等有关法律规定,总结中国海事审判经验,参照国际海运惯例、国际海事公约,借鉴国际海事司法的通常做法,最高人民法院民事审判第四庭起草了《最高人民法院关于审理无正本提单交付货物案件适用法律若干问题的规定》,并于2009年3月5日起施行。从规定适用的提单范围,承运人无单放货的责任,承运人无单放货是否可以享有责任限制,承运人提单审查的风险责任,承运人承担赔偿责任的范围,可否免除承运人的赔偿责任,可否免除承运人交付货物的责任,对记名提单持有人所享有权利的限制,免除承运人交货义务,无正本提单交付货物的连带责任,实际交付货物的托运人可否有索赔权,正本提单持有人的索赔权以及正本提单持有人索赔的诉讼时效等方面对规定加以阐述和说明。