当前我国马克思主义大众化面临的挑战

推动马克思主义大众化,关系到社会主义核心价值体系的构建及全面建设小康社会的实现。本文旨在探究马克思主义大众化过程中面临挑战的原因,并有针对性地提出相应的对策,推动马克思主义大众化的发展。     

被遗忘的权利———社交网站引发的隐私权规制困境与对策研究

随着社交网络时代的到来,人们开始在现实世界里运用互联网、以数字化方式建立人际交往关系、表达和传递自己的个人信息.互联网这一“第四媒体”在生活中的悄然融入,虽然为人们提供了一个“共享信息、展示自我”的平台,但由此引发的隐私过度暴露问题却不容小觑.鉴于社交网站所引发的隐私争议,以语境完整性理论的视角分析争议背后的隐私风险与规制困境,在借鉴域外保护隐私权的成功经验基础上,探讨我国保护网络隐私权的有效机制,以期为网络隐私权保护的实践运作提供理论参考.     

法官澄清义务研究

法官澄清义务以发现客观真实为目的，以法官的积极作为为表现形式。澄清义务由法官对辩方的诉讼关照义务、对控方一定的释明权、法官庭上积极的查证责任，以及庭外调查取证责任组成。在我国现阶段研究澄清义务，有助于体现审判中心主义原则，扭转法官在庭审中不合理的倾向性，提高简易程序事实认定的准确性，保证法官变更诉讼罪名的合理性。未来澄清义务将强调协助性和补充性，淡化义务色彩，成为对被告权利的有力保障。我国法官履行澄清义务应作为检察机关履行证明责任的补充手段，在不改变原证据构造的前提下对存疑证据进行调查核实。法官应积极履行关照义务，特别是基本权利告知义务。辩方申请法官收集对己有利的证据，能够证明证据存在并提供取证线索的，法官应尽量允许。增加法官庭外调查言词证据的手段，强化检察机关和侦查机关配合法官取证的义务。     

当前中国马克思哲学理论创新中的三个困境与问题自觉

当前中国语境中的马克思哲学的理论创新存在三个基本的困境或问题:第一个是理论创新的价值取向与哲学特质、本性之间的悖谬；第二个是理论创新的目标要求与马克思哲学的理论特质之间的分裂；第三个是马克思哲学推进的世界历史基础与中国社会现实基地之间的差异.这种困境可以归结于马克思哲学理论创新中的狭隘政治实用主义,实质反映的是普遍与特殊、长远目标与近期任务之间的关系.只有保持深度的问题自觉,中国马克思哲学的理论创新才能真正走出和摆脱这种迷茫和困境状态.     

信息化背景下流窜盗窃案件的侦查困境及对策

随着经济的高速发展,信息化和交通业蓬勃发展,其在给人们生活带来方便的同时,也给犯罪分子利用交通工具远距离流窜作案提供了新途径。而此类案件中,以远距离流窜盗窃较为普遍。因此,从信息化背景下流窜盗窃案件频发的原因剖析出发,结合案件的特点深入分析案件的侦查困境,寻求此类案件的侦查对策,对当前侦查实务工作有所裨益。     

Mediation and the Art of Shuttle Diplomacy

Mediation caucusing — that is, separate meetings conducted by the mediator with some, but not all, of the parties — is widely used, but it has become increasingly controversial, as some mediators advocate for a no‐caucus form of mediation using only joint sessions with all parties present. The rationale for the no‐caucus model is that caucuses give the mediator too much power at the expense of the parties, and joint sessions improve the parties' understanding of each other's views. But caucusing adds value to mediation in several ways. First, from the standpoint of economic theory, caucusing provides mediators with an important tool for overcoming two impediments to settlement — the “prisoner's dilemma” (caused by the parties' fear of mutual exploitation) and “adverse selection” (caused by the failure to disclose information). Second, caucusing can help the mediator overcome a variety of negotiation problems, such as communication barriers, unrealistic expectations, emotional barriers, intraparty conflict, and fear of losing face. Third, caucusing provides a more private setting in which the mediator can develop a deeper and more personal understanding of the parties' needs and interests. Although the no‐caucus model may be appropriate for certain types of mediation (particularly those cases in which the parties will have an ongoing relationship), some parties may prefer the efficiency that can be achieved with caucusing, even if that means sacrificing certain other values — such as greater understanding — or giving the mediator more information than the parties have, thus creating the risk of manipulation by the mediator. Moreover, the choice is not binary — numerous variations and hybrid formats can be useful, such as sessions in which the mediator meets with only the parties' lawyers or with only the parties. Choosing the best format for a mediation is more of an art than a science, and mediators should consider, with the parties, whether the parties' objectives would be best served using only joint sessions, extensive caucusing, or a combination of these approaches.     

新生代农民工的思想政治教育探讨

新生代农民工对经济社会的发展做出了重要贡献,但面临的思想问题也逐渐凸显。加强对新生代农民工的思想政治教育,全面提高新生代农民工的综合素质和自我发展能力,是推动农村发展,维护社会稳定的内在要求。     

信访制度的功能期待及其重构

信访制度是一项具有中国特色的政治参与和权利救济制度，但这一制度存在诸多缺陷，学者对信访制度的争论也很激烈，主张进行彻底的改革。笔者认为对信访制度的重构不能局限于对法治的简单的形式主义的理解。     

Dueling experts and imperfect verification

In the Dueling Experts Game, adversarial experts strategically produce “good” or “bad” evidence to support their partisan testimony. Good evidence is probative while bad evidence has no evidentiary value. The new feature of this Game is that Judge sometimes erroneously identifies good evidence as bad evidence and vice versa. Along the Game’s equilibrium path, each partisan expert produces only good evidence if it supports his side. When favorable good evidence is unavailable, an expert produces bad evidence to support his testimony. Hence, dueling experts always contradict one another. Despite their conflicting testimony, one of the experts invariably produces the available good evidence for Judge. Therefore, Judge always receives the available good evidence. A central result is that the quality of experts, including their ability to persuade judges using available good evidence, and the quality of judges – their ability to distinguish good from bad evidence – determine the accuracy of verdicts. Remarkably, the likelihood that experts are endowed with good evidence does not matter provided that this likelihood is not identically zero or one.     

论网络犯罪侦查中的跨国警务合作

20世纪中叶,计算机的出现引起了人类世界的一次深刻变革,随后开发的网络技术就像一股浪潮席卷了全球。与此同时网络领域的犯罪迅猛发展,严重影响了各国和国际社会的正常秩序。网络犯罪的跨国性十分突出,跨国警务合作势在必行。应加强网络犯罪侦查中跨国合作的建设,发挥国际刑警组织的协调作用,同时完善各国法律框架,开展更广阔范围内的国际刑事司法协助,并重视发挥民间技术力量的作用。