联合国和平解决争端机制的缺陷

和平是人类的企盼。作为第一个和平解决国际争端的国际安全体系——国联失败了。在吸取教训的基础上建立的联合国明确禁止以武力解决国际争端,并以安理会为核心设计了和平解决争端机制。但科索沃危机暴露了此机制存在的问题： １． 安理会的政治基础不稳, “五大国一致”并不能真正一致。２． 联合国和平解决争端机制, 对大国制约不够。３． 国际法不适应形势的发展, 出现无法可依的情况。     

中菲南海争端仲裁案中菲律宾诉求评析

关于中菲南海争端强制仲裁一案,菲律宾向仲裁法庭提出的诉求可合并为针对中国南海传统断续线的诉求、针对南海中中国部分岛礁的诉求和针对中国南海行使管辖权的诉求.对此,中国在应对上可选择向仲裁法庭行使“初步反对的权利”或其他合法方式发表其没有管辖权的理由,并通过反对申请书的可接受性力争结束仲裁.     

比较法视野下的劳动者集体争议行动之法律规制

利益调整所引发的集体争议行动是市场经济背景下劳资争议的重要型态。基于劳资自治的保障需求,大多市场经济国家(地区)对劳动者集体争议行动这种侵权行为予以有限制的法律保护。我国因加薪所引发的集体停工频发,凸显了法律对集体争议行动失范及其法律秩序重构的必要。借鉴国外立法例,结合国情,我国宜采取消极立法模式,通过特殊的法律责任豁免制度和特殊的劳资利益争议处理程序,以规范劳动者集体争议行动。     

在线纠纷解决机制的困境和对策

ODR机制作为一种新生的纠纷解决方式,其在解决小额的、当事人间物理距离遥远的网络民事纠纷方面具有特别优势。而ODR机制存在着受理案件的有限性、提供救济方式的有限性、技术工具的双刃性等价值定位缺陷;存在着信任性不足、接近性难等实务利用缺陷;存在着程序被滥用、实践标准混乱等制度设计缺陷。ODR机制价值定位存在的缺陷是ODR本身所固有的,无法克服;实务利用缺陷和制度设计缺陷则可以通过相应的对策予以消减甚至消除。     

Women Police Stations as a Dispute Processing System

Abstract

In 1992, the Tamil Nadu State government in India began to introduce all-women police stations whose primary role is to deal with crimes against women, including family violence and dowry disputes. Dowry giving is a customary practice in India, which often results in disputes between young wives and their new families. As a result, the young women may be subjected to physical and mental ill treatment, sometimes resulting in death. Using detailed data from 474 case records and interviews with 60 dowry victims, the present study examines how women police stations serve as a dispute processing system, and describes the services extended by the stations to the victims of dowry disputes. Many cases were successfully resolved and violence was frequently reduced. The study holds implications for the extension of training in dispute resolution for women police in India.     

The Past,Present, and Future of Mediation as Seen through the Eyes of Some of Its Founders

This article is drawn from interviews with thirty‐one of mediation's “founders,” those pioneers who began mediating in the 1970s and 1980s, when the field was young. They describe what first attracted them to mediation and why they have remained active in the field. Some told us that they have found it to be both intellectually challenging and interpersonally satisfying to assist disputing parties in their search for a mutually acceptable resolution they could not find on their own. Others see mediation's collaborative approach to decision making as a means of bringing about social and political change that might be otherwise unattainable. The mediators also described the changes they have observed since they entered the field: mediation's dramatic growth, institutionalization in the judicial system, and market domination by lawyers and retired judges. Among the concerns they expressed were the prevalence of a mediation model that focuses primarily on the legal strengths and weaknesses of each party's position, and the dollar amount that should resolve the dispute, with little interest in creative outcomes. Other concerns are a lack of quality control of mediators and trainers, and unproductive debate about whether the “correct” approach to mediation is evaluative, facilitative, or transformative. The mediators who work on public policy matters, including environmental disputes, were the most positive about the opportunity for creativity in their work, considerably more so than those mediators whose practice is primarily business/commercial. The mediators' views of the future of mediation are remarkably similar — their general sense is that the type of mediation that takes place in the shadow of the courts is likely to increase and to become even more routinized than it is at present. Several respondents told us that they also expect to see substantial growth in the use of mediation to resolve public policy issues. Many of these mediators predicted that this type of mediation is likely to be carried out by organizational insiders, rather than outside interveners. As one mediator said, “Maybe there's a new set of mediation roles for people within traditional institutions, not just for free‐standing neutrals.”     

我国群体诉讼的立法与司法实践

我国大多数群体纠纷被法院分案受理,既有制度本身的问题,又与司法实践中存在着影响法院积极适用代表人诉讼的诸多因素和司法政策有关。由于群体纠纷本身就需要根据案件的具体情况,采取多元化的方式处理,所以,法院通过其他一些诉讼形式解决群体纠纷是无可非议的。但是,在多元化群体纠纷解决机制中,代表人诉讼制度是必不可少的,其独特的价值和功能是不可能被现在各地法院所尝试的其他替代性诉讼方式所完全取代的。     

治安调解战术策略探析

随着社会主义市场经济的深入发展,社会成员之间利益格局的重新调整,各类社会矛盾纠纷频繁发生,错综复杂,已成为影响基层社会稳定的重要因素。调解纠纷是公安机关日常社会管理中的一项重要工作,涉及社区警务、治安管理、“110”接处警和不安定因素等多项公安日常工作。公安机关所承担的行政调解,对于有效维护社会政治和治安秩序的稳定,预防犯罪和群体性事件的发生具有深远的意义。公安民警在日常调解纠纷的工作中,只有坚持原则,审时度势,灵活而合理地运用各种战术策略,才能掌握主动,收取事半功倍的实际效果。     

WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的合理性分析

WTO专家组和上诉机构为了完成其迅速而有效地解决争端的义务,在DSU没有对举证责任分配规则做出任何规定的情形下,在判例中基本采用了谁主张谁举证的原则,同时,也发展了一些举证责任分配规则和标准。遗憾的是,专家组和上诉机构的实践表明,他们并没有严格遵守其形成的相关举证责任分配规则,其形成的相关标准也缺乏合理性:传统的谁主张谁举证原则由于忽视了实质公平,在WTO审理实践中容易被滥用;例外规定与排除规定之间存在区别的分析多此一举;重要性等级标准缺乏合理性及例外规定作为举证责任分配的标准既没有法律依据,其合理性也受到质疑。这必然削弱了WTO争端解决机制的权威性,因此,对WTO专家组和上诉机构所形成的举证责任分配规则和标准实行必要的改革,已成为当务之急。