Unilateral CDM—can developing countries finance generation of greenhouse gas emission credits on their own?

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was originally seen as an instrument with a bi- or multilateral character where an entity or fund from an industrialised country invests in a project in a developing country. The sluggish implementation of incentives for industrialised country companies to embark on CDM projects and low carbon prices led to a preference for just buying Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) instead of investing in projects. Thus a third option has gained prominence—the unilateral option where the project development is planned and financed within the developing country. We propose that a project should be called “pure unilateral” if it involves no foreign direct investment (FDI), only has the approval of the Designated National Authority (DNA) of the host country and sells its CERs after certification directly to an industrialised country. Unilateral projects can become attractive if the host country risk premium for foreign investors is high despite a high human, institutional and infrastructural capacity and domestic capital availability. Moreover, transaction costs can be reduced compared to foreign investments that have to overcome bureaucratic hurdles. On the other hand, technology transfer is likely to be lower, capacity building has to be undertaken by the host country and all risks have to be carried by host country entities. The potential to carry out unilateral CDM projects strongly varies among host countries. Whereas several countries from Asia and Latin America can design and implement projects autonomously, most of the Sub-Saharan countries rely on foreign support. International donors of capacity building grants should increasingly address those countries that are not presently focused on by foreign investors and support them in the design of local projects.

域外医疗损害之举证责任分配比较与我国的策略

举证责任,是民事诉讼的核心问题,它直接规划着民事诉讼的构造形态,在民事诉讼中有着举足轻重的地位。而举证责任的分配,又是举证责任制度的核心,也是理论研究最有争议的问题。大陆法系与英美法系在举证责任和举证责任分配上各有特点,美国、德国、日本和我国台湾地区医疗损害的举证责任分配规则也各有千秋,作者建议,我国现阶段医疗损害举证责任分配的规则应当进行相应改造。     

论“平安世博”视域下治安复杂地区长效管控机制建设

加强对治安复杂地区的管控是世博安保工作"从严从紧,以面保点"总体思路和原则的重要内容。公安机关要以世博安保工作为契机,建立与完善治安复杂地区长效管控机制,维护好社会稳定。     

日本加快走向“情报强国”

冷战结束以来,日本政府在加紧走向＂政治强国＂、＂军事强国＂的同时,也在加紧走向＂情报强国＂。设立＂国家安全会议＂,强化国家安全战略的决策机制;整顿战后建立的情报体制,加强情报的搜集和分析能力;加紧建立太空情报体系,编织严密的卫星侦察网络;拓展对外情报合作,建立国际性情报网络。日本正从上述多个方面不断加强情报搜集的组织、体制和情报搜集功能的建设。     

民族地区社会稳定长效机制实施保障研究

民族地区社区稳定长效机制的实施是一个系统工程,需要组织领导、政策、制度、法律、经费、物资与设施设备等多种要素的协调作用与有力保障。组织领导是民族地区社会稳定长效机制实施的主导要素,政策、制度、法律是民族地区社会稳定长效机制实施的规则要素,经费与物资是民族地区社会稳定长效机制实施的物质支持要素。     

从强制仲裁到劳动法庭:印度尼西亚劳动争议解决机制的晚近发展

后苏哈托时期,印度尼西亚废除了苏哈托政府时期的压制性劳工政策,并对其劳动争议解决机制进行重大改革,废除强制仲裁,建立劳动法庭,鼓励争议的自愿性解决。然而,由于缺乏法治和自治传统、经济落后等原因,改革的实效并不理想。然而,印度尼西亚的改革展示了一个转型社会劳动争议解决机制改革的经验和问题,值得思考和借鉴。     

在仪式性辩论中寻求改革的路径——以泸州医学院首届教学精细化管理主题辩论大赛为例

具有“潜在课程”性质的仪式性辩论是大学文化的重要载体之一,在促进教育群体告别二元对立思维、传播教学理念、转变教育思想过程中发挥着不可替代的重要作用。根据自中国先秦以来就有的“理念的传播离不开辩论”这一论点,借助仪式性辩论这一对话平台。泸州医学院举行了教学精细化管理主题辩论大赛,使问题在辩论中明晰,同时借辩手的论辩向教育群体传播教育理念。结果表明：蕴涵巨大能量的辩论赛在潜移默化中对教学思想的转变和教学理念的转变起着催化剂和凝固剂的功能。有益于实现教学理念的转换和教学观念“对峙”的跨越。     

中国-东盟自由贸易区商贸争端仲裁解决机制若干问题研究

中国-东盟自由贸易区的建立对于其缔约国的经济发展,对世界区域经济一体化具有重要的作用。但是,伴随其经济发展、贸易交往的频繁,其商贸争端也增多。仲裁作为一种解决商贸纠纷的手段,对区域内经济和谐稳定增长、商贸关系发展良好有着不可替代的作用。本文旨在分析商贸争端的仲裁解决机制。     

Assessment of country‐risk on the euromarkets

Recent years have seen several studies and proposals from national parliaments (NPs) to deepen their direct involvement in European decision-making, most notably by strengthening the early warning mechanism (EWM – also known as yellow card procedure). The EWM is a technical-legalistic procedure that is restricted to subsidiarity. This ‘straightjacket’ is too limited as a monitoring tool for European policies more broadly and can hardly be seen as a response to current democratic concerns. Framing the EWM as a democratic solution to empower NPs thus risks becoming one of Europe’s empty mantras.     

土地开发增值收益分配制度的法理基础

土地开发权的性质是公权力,其基本内容是土地用途管制和规划管理,土地开发权决定土地资源的初始配置,它是土地资源市场配置的基础。土地利用的公法调整是私法调整的基础。土地开发权是产生土地开发增值收益的决定因素,这是构建和完善土地开发增值收益分配制度的法理基础。国家应当以土地管理者身份参与土地开发增值收益的初次分配和二次分配,以实现土地开发增值收益社会分享的政策目标。作为土地所有权人的国家和集体以及其他民事权利主体,依据民事权利参与土地开发增值收益的初次分配。