公务员在行政法中的地位探讨

行政法属于公务员普法地位的特别规定。公务员在行政法中的地位 ,通过行政法关系体现。公务员在内部和外部行政法律关系中的地位完全不同。在外部行政行为中 ,公务员既不是行政主体 ,也不是行政相对人 ,而是作为国家行政机关代理人。但是公务员在内部行政法律关系中具有主体地位。根据《行政监察法》有关规定 ,公务员的职务行为需接受行政监察。公务员是行政诉讼法律关系的主体之一 ,但与诉讼主体的主体地位有很大差异。     

解放思想是怎样成为改革开放先导的

本文围绕真理标准大讨论成为解放思想的突破口、思想路线的恢复和重新确立使解放思想和以人为本成为题中之义、解放思想推动我国经济社会的三次转型及其在新时期所具有的复杂性和层次性等三个方面,揭示和阐明解放思想是怎样成为改革开放先导的。     

An overview: A new era of tax enforcement – from “big stick” to responsive regulation

Recent developments in regulation and tax administration in Australia inspired this article on tax compliance and responsive regulation. This article analyzes the economics of crime and compliance as the dominant approach to tax enforcement of the past three and a half decades. It evaluates the key advantages and disadvantages of the economic approach as well as its application to tax. The article then explores responsive regulation as an alternative method that draws on the economic paradigm but also supplements this approach with other theories, particularly those involving identity, conflict escalation, and procedural justice. Building on this analysis and a case study of Australian investors in mass marketed tax schemes, the article suggests that the broader, more balanced, and closely tailored method of regulating responsively may enable regulators to draw on the advantages of the economic model while alleviating some of its drawbacks. Responsive regulation may therefore constitute a superior method for regulating compliance.     

“行政主体间性”——府际关系的渊源与基点

我国中央政府、地方政府和行政部门之间的关系错综复杂,使得府际争议的求解鲜有头绪。行政主体间性的提出基于行政主体范式和主体间性理念,应用于公共行政之府际关系领域。行政主体间性倡导理性、创制规则,尊重多元行政主体的独立性,破除行政级别窠臼以实现多元行政主体间的全方位交流和多元政府间良性互动。     

New Thinking in Financial Market Regulation: Dismantling the “Split Share Structure” of Chinese Listed Companies

China’s distinctive set of stock market institutions was introduced in 1990. Among the characteristics of China’s stock markets was a strict separation between different categories of investors. Listed companies issued different categories of shares to state shareholders, domestic corporate investors, domestic individual investors, and foreign investors. By 2005, the barriers segmenting China’s stock market had been significantly relaxed. Domestic investors were allowed to purchase shares previously reserved for foreign investors, and approved foreign investors were allowed to purchase shares previously earmarked for domestic individuals. Nevertheless, a crucial barrier remained. An ongoing debate among Chinese academics, investors, and policy makers focused on how to resolve the “split share structure” (guquan fen zhi) in which a minority of shares were tradable while the majority of shares (namely those reserved for domestic corporate and state shareholders) were excluded from the market. The split share structure was blamed for distorting prices and inhibiting development of the stock market. This paper analyzes the policy adopted to address the split share structure. To what extent does this policy change reflect new thinking on the part of China’s market regulators? This paper argues that analysis of policy making in China’s capital markets can help to distinguish between two competing assessments of China’s political economy. One account sees China pursuing a gradualist strategy, slowly but steadily expanding the role of markets. Another account sees China trapped in a semi-marketized and increasingly corrupt development pattern. The implementation of the split share structure reform program provides evidence to support the gradualist account of incremental, but persistent, reform. Mary Comerford Cooper is an assistant professor in political science at the Ohio State University. Her recent research focuses on the politics of financial markets in China and Taiwan. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Comparative Politics Research Workshop/ Globalization, Institutions and Economic Security Workshop at Ohio State University in May 2007, and at the annual meeting of the Association for Chinese Political Studies in July 2007. I benefited greatly from the constructive and insightful comments of Bj?rn Alpermann, Melanie Barr, Jean-Marc Blanchard, Sarah Brooks, Joseph Fewsmith, Sujian Guo, Dane Imerman, Ryan Kennedy, Marcus Kurtz, Xiaoyu Pu, James Reilly, Alex Thompson, Daniel Verdier, Jianwei Wang, Alan Wiseman, Bin Yu, and an anonymous reviewer. I am also grateful for Lan Hu’s exceptional research assistance. All remaining flaws are purely my own.     

试析越南的金融改革

自越共“六大”后,越南在经济改革和金融改革的推动下,经济增长保持了比较快的速度。本文认为越南的经济之所以能够取得比较大的成效,很大程度上得益于在经济改革的同时对金融部门进行了改革,特别是利率的自由化和汇率政策的调整,促使越南的银行规模有所扩大,效率相比改革前得到明显提高。因此本文的主题就是对越南的金融改革进行一个梳理,明白金融改革所带来的绩效以及改革中存在的问题,明确下一步改革的方向。     

行政相对人程序参与权利评析

在现代行政程序中,行政相对人成为主要程序主体的地位理应受到尊重。而通过行政程序法确认相对人程序参与权利正是弘扬权利保障这一时代主旋律的具体体现。行政相对人行使程序参与权有其深远的民主与法治基础。行政程序法不仅要明确规范确认行政相对人具体的程序参与权利,而且要对行政相对人行使程序参与权利提供法律上的保障。     

行政检查公民的住宅必须使用搜查证

公民的住宅权受到宪法保护,政府是否可以通过行政检查来限制这种宪法权利,这就是本文要讨论的关键问题。行政检查与刑事搜查是不同的。相对于刑事搜查而言,行政检查的形式要件是比较简单的。既然行政检查和刑事搜查可能都会涉及被嫌疑人的住所,既然用检查证和搜查证都可以进入被嫌疑人的住所,那么两者就很容易被模糊界限而出现滥用的情况。如果行政检查不需要搜查证,那么警察是否还会刻意去获得搜查证?因此,降低行政检查的标准,就会出现以行政检查为虚、以刑事搜查为实的严重恶果。尤其当警察兼具行政执法和刑事侦查任务时,这种情况更难以避免。     

行政生态学视角中的政府问责制

政府问责制是和谐社会下建立服务型政府的必然要求。目前,由于问责信息的不对称,政府对决策信息存在着高度垄断,问责主体的缺失,行政长官的零问责导致的行政权力膨胀,以及问责程序缺乏可操作性,问责外部缺乏明显的制度保障等等都是政府问责制实施中出现的新问题。     

论侦查权的性质与特征

侦查权在我国被认为是一种司法权,这导致犯罪嫌疑人在认为侦查机关的行为违反法律规定时无权申请法院进行审查,这对于保护被追诉人的权利是极其不利的。从本质上来看,侦查权是一种执行权,这与行政权是一致的,而与司法权有着根本的差异。从基本特征来看,侦查权在价值与功能、体制与人员以及权力运作方面也与司法权有着根本的差异。