论滥用诉权

诉权是一种程序性权利,它建立的基础是平等主体之间因人身关系和财产关系所发生的纠纷,当事人行使诉权得到了法律的保护,基于宪法对人权的保障和尊重.诉权的行使一旦超出了合法界限,就会损害他人的合法权益,诉讼随着纠纷而启动,从而出现了滥用诉权的问题.如何界定滥用诉权及滥用诉权的表现形式,都是当前需探讨的问题.     

美国公立高校学生纪律处分程序制度及其启示——以加州大学伯克利分校为例

美国公立高校处分学生时有遵循正当程序的义务,各高校普遍建立了完善的学生纪律处分程序制度。处分过程保障当事学生与师生代表的参与,处分机构民主性与中立性强,行政色彩很淡。正当程序保护的重心是处分决定的最初作出过程,校内申诉作为救济手段只是用来"拾遗补缺",学生无正当理由不能提起。美国相关程序突出了学生权利保护的价值倾向,但并没有走向过于司法化,且关注学术违纪行为的特殊性,对我国高校有重要借鉴意义。     

论文化全球化中的边界意识及影响因素

文化全球化的边界,是指不同文化的活动范围和存在空间具有的一定界域。文化全球化的边界意识类似于中国古代社会的"和而不同"思想,包括价值边界意识、话语边界意识(表达的边界意识)、文化交流的边界意识等方面。文化边界的走向决定于文化的向心力和离心力、文化的吸引力和排斥力、文化的继承性和变异性等因素,经济发展和社会互动、文化的冲突和融合、科技的交流和应用等亦对文化边界发生深刻作用。     

南海断续线的法律地位:历史性水域、疆域线、抑或岛屿归属线?

有关南海断续线的法律地位问题,向来为南海周边的东南亚国家所关注。本文列举了历史性水域、海上疆域线和岛屿归属线3种提法。通过研究和比较,认为把断续线作为岛屿归属线的提法,无论从断续线最初产生时的情况,或者后来在实际应用中所起的作用,似乎是可以认可的。     

刑事和解的立法依据——基于刑民界限之博弈信息论视角

刑事和解作为刑民界限之博弈产物,是立法机关在针对刑民关系的特点上,基于理性、偏好等信息进行合理决策后达致的纳什均衡.同时,刑事和解也具有检验纳什均衡的功能,并使得国家和个人均没有改变和偏离刑事和解的动机.博弈论的独特视角打破了传统刑民界限的僵硬隔离,为刑事和解立法策略的.正当性和合理性提供了积极的支持.     

东盟国家间领土边界争端的成因及影响

二战后东盟国家之间大都存在着领土边界争端,其实这种争端主要有两种:一种是东盟国家之间的陆上疆界或岛屿主权的争端;另一种是东盟国家之间因海洋资源的获取、领海及大陆架疆界的划分问题而出现的争端.本文认为,东盟国家间所产生的这种领土边界争端的原因主要是"殖民主义的遗产"、历史纠葛和国家之间经济利益的争夺.这种争端不仅给东盟国家之间的关系造成不稳定的影响,而且也影响到东盟的安全协调体制.     

Working the Spaces in between: A Case Study of a Boundary‐Spanning Model to Help Facilitate Cross‐Sectoral Policy Work

Since the 1990s, ‘joined‐up government,’ ‘whole‐of‐government,’ and ‘horizontal governance’ approaches have emerged in many industrialized countries, resulting in the devolution of government functions to diverse policy networks. From these shifts, complex systems of networked actors have emerged, involved in designing, implementation, and influencing policy. Arguably, networked approaches to policy may solve some problems. However, as with all paradigm shifts, new problems have emerged. Specifically, skill and knowledge gaps have opened up, reflecting the need for new collaborative and networked relationships that can increase the capabilities and agility to work in these ways. In response to these gaps, we developed the Power to Persuade initiative. Power to Persuade is an annual symposium and online forum, aimed at deepening knowledge and awareness of current problems faced by policy networks, and providing the skills and knowledge to overcome them. In this paper, we discuss how Power to Persuade works within the spaces in between as a vehicle for relationship building and better policy.     

从“工学界限”到“打成一片”——中国共产党建党前后深入工人群众的实践经验及启示

五四时期,随着“劳工神圣”思潮的风行,“与劳工为伍”成为响应时代潮流的呼声。从北京大学平民教育讲演团深入工农群众开展讲演,到具有初步共产主义思想的知识分子在长辛店开办劳动补习学校,再到中国劳动组合书记部北方分部以长辛店工运工作为基础向北方各地工人组织扩展,整个过程充分展现了中国共产党在建党前后深入群众问题上的探索和实践情况。其中,“工学界限”问题曾一度影响了革命宣传和组织深入。面对这个问题,早期共产党人坚持以马克思主义为指导,坚定深入工人群众的工作方向,踏实、务实、创造性地开展了一系列实践探索,最终弥合了工学界限,与工人群众打成一片,积累了中国共产党人开展群众工作的最初经验。深入分析和研究这一历史过程,对于坚定人民立场、践行群众路线具有重要的指导意义。     

Effects of Work Boundary Strength on Employees' Emotional Exhaustion:The Mediating Role of Role Stress

Based on organizational support theory and “stressor-strain-outcome” model, this study constructs a moderated mediation model to research the mechanism between workload boundary and employees’ emotional exhaustion. Using a questionnaire survey, the results show that there is a U-shape relationship between the workload boundary and the employees’ emotional exhaustion; and this relationship is mediated by employees’ role stress. Furthermore, boundary flexibility moderates the U-shape relationship between workload boundary and employees’ role stress. This means that the boundary flexibility can help reduce the negative effects of the workload boundary on the employees’ role stress, and compared with too strong and too weak workload boundary, the reduced negative effects are the most appropriate when the workload boundary is in the middle. Lastly, workload flexibility moderates the mediation effects of employees’ role stress.     

The policy scientist of democracy revisited

A recent appraisal by Farr et al. (Am Polit Sci Rev 100:579–587 2006) credited Lasswell with raising important questions of professional responsibility for political science. However, the appraisal rejected working answers to those questions offered by Lasswell and his colleagues without considering them substantively or comprehensively. In doing so, the appraisal misleads those academics in political science and other disciplines who may be interested in a genuinely professional role for themselves, a role that takes into account the social consequences of the exercise of their knowledge and skills. This article provides a more authentic introduction to Lasswell’s life and work and vision of the policy scientist of democracy, and suggests some alternatives for would-be professionals.