试论刑事程序规则——从逻辑构成的角度

考虑解决刑事诉讼司法实践中出现的一些问题时,人们喜欢从整体上思考构成刑事诉讼程序各个阶段的内容以及它们之间的关系,一般忽视了从较为微观的角度进行研究.而仅从逻辑构成来看,我国刑事程序规则就存在着较大的缺陷.从法理和现实依据来看,刑事程序规则应由两部分组成即实体性规定和实施性规定.而我国刑事程序规则严重缺乏实施性规定.     

潜规则生发机制及其遏制——兼论吏治规范

潜规则是官场正式规则背后的另类规则，它像癌细胞一样寄生于正式规则又不断地侵蚀着正式规则。正式规则下的自由裁量权和官员的个人理性是潜规则生存的充分必要条件，基于个人理性的自组织(self—organizing)机制则是潜规则得以扩张的根本原因。潜规则遏制的核心问题是如何提高控制的有效性，在当前的转型期社会，吏治规范的主要思路是强化人民代表大会的监督职能，建立相对独立的监督行政体系。     

现行《婚姻法》有关夫妻财产制度之审视及其完善

刚修订的《婚姻法》对夫妻财产制度作了新的规定,较原来规定有了很大的改善,但有关夫妻财产管理、处理方面的规定仍显得较为粗疏,存在一些不足:如共同财产规定得很不周延;夫妻财产契约的签订必须遵守诚信原则,不得有违社会之公序良俗,婚姻法对此有所疏漏;夫妻财产制度的约定缺乏公示程序的规定,令该约定缺乏公信力;夫妻财产制度缺乏协议变更程序等。应在此基础上做出相应的立法修改。     

论犯罪嫌疑人、被告人供述的几个问题

供述作为一种法定的证据种类一直受到理论界和实务部门的关注 ,本文在分析了供述的证据价值后 ,认为应当在充分肯定供述的证据价值的同时 ,更要理性的认识供述的特征 ,从而确定供述的证据资格 ,使供述能在诉讼中真正发挥证据的证明作用     

沉默权之我见

我国法律中没有明确赋予嫌疑人沉默权,但从遏制刑讯逼供、保障人权、民主诉讼、准确司法的角度看,有必要确立沉默权。“不必自我归罪”是沉默权的司法原则,侦讯仍是一种取证手段。沉默权不能同“老实交待”对立起来。强调“认罪服法”与“不必自我归罪”原则是相冲突的。“不必自我归罪”并非不可以“自我归罪”,“坦白从宽”应得到兑现。被迫供述与自愿供述都可采用为证据。     

非法证据排除规则研究

非法获取证据的违规乃至犯罪行为在司法实践中屡见不鲜,其发生有多方面的原因。制度上的根源是我国目前尚未建立起配套齐全的非法证据排除规则。本文采用比较研究的方式,在论述中外非法证据排除规则的基础上,提出了构建和完善符合我国国情的非法证据排除规则的建议。     

A ‘whole system’ approach to the choice of electoral rules in democratizing countries:: Senegal in comparative perspective

Authoritarian incumbents in democratizing countries choose electoral rules to retain power while accommodating opposition demands for increased participation and representation. We clarify the political logic of this institutional choice and its consequences in Senegal by employing a ‘whole system’ approach that emphasizes the intricate but often hidden relationships between elections and the rules governing them at multiple levels — presidential, legislative and local. Success at one level depends on performance at all levels. In the short run, multiple-level electoral reforms preserve the ruling party in power while expanding opportunities for, but also fragmenting, the opposition. In the long run, they encourage splits within the ruling party and help the opposition develop increased ability to coalesce around a single opposition candidate, resulting in the defeat of the authoritarian incumbent and a democratic transfer of power through competitive elections.     

健全我国口供采证规则的思考

口供,即犯罪嫌疑人的供述与辩解,是我国法定的证据形式。口供采证规则,是指在刑事诉讼中收集、保全和运用口供的法律准则。作为程序法的证据规则,较之于实体内容最明显的优点是它的可把握性。健全采信与排除口供的证据规则,并遵循规则办案,就能在最大程度上保证刑事诉讼程序正义与实体真实双重目的的实现。     

论民事诉讼中当事人陈述

民事诉讼的证据制度,作为当事人双方和法院追求正义的基础,具有重要作用。而当事人的陈述,在新民事诉讼法修改后位列证据制度的第一位,证明其有着不可忽视的价值。本文从当事人陈述这项证据位置的变化入手,通过比较大陆法系、英美法系、苏俄民事诉讼的立法,证实了当事人陈述是具有查明案件真相、防止诉讼拖延、追求"法律真实"等重要意义。     

Creating Stable Agreements in Marine Policy: Learning from the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

In this article, we examine the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative stakeholder process, evaluate its shortcomings, and consider what could have been done differently. Our objective is to make recommendations to improve future multi‐stakeholder marine policy processes. In our view, while the South Coast stakeholder process had many positive outcomes, it failed to reach what we call here a “stable agreement.” Our analysis is based on two of the authors’ involvement (one as a facilitator and the other as a stakeholder representative) in the process and a post‐hoc survey of participants. We find that several ill‐advised process design and management choices significantly destabilized the negotiations, leading to an ultimately unstable agreement. We highlight four major problematic process design and management decisions, including the following: representation on the multi‐stakeholder group was imbalanced, the pre‐meeting caucuses were not paired with training in interest‐based negotiation, adequate incentives to negotiate toward a consensus agreement were not provided, and the use of straw voting at one point in the process was unclear and inconsistent. As a result of these and other process design and management flaws, many stakeholders believed that the process was biased and that their ends would be better achieved by anchoring negotiations and engaging in positional bargaining. Ultimately, this meant that near‐consensus on a single cross‐interest marine protected area proposal was not reached, the scientific guidelines put forth were not fully met, the process was not and is not viewed as fair by the stakeholders directly or indirectly involved, and the marine protected area regulations lack broad‐scale support. These pitfalls of the South Coast stakeholder process could have been avoided had the management and facilitation team consistently followed best practices in dispute resolution. We recommend that future marine planning processes learn from this example, particularly those occurring in highly complex, urban ocean environments.