论纠纷的可诉性

纠纷的可诉性是实现当事人的裁判请求权的逻辑前提 ,纠纷可诉性的广度反映了裁判请求权的实现程度。目前我国民事诉讼法理论和实务界关于纠纷可诉性的标准或依据及范围的理解限制了裁判请求权实现的空间范围。纠纷可诉性的标准应当为纠纷是平等主体之间的财产关系争议和人身关系争议 ,而并非限于民事法律关系争议。纠纷可诉性的范围包括民法所调整的民事法律关系发生的争议、应受民事法律保护的应有权利受到侵害引发的争议、宪法权利受到私法主体侵害所引发的争议。     

Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model: Into Extreme Conflict

This article discusses an extension to the Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument (Thomas and Kilmann 1977) designed specifically for conflict situations in which strong negative emotional relationships are at play. The Thomas–Kilmann (TK) model is widely used to help participants (disputants and mediators) identify how two basic conflict characteristics interact to influence how stakeholders shape their actions with regard to their interests. Essentially the TK Model is built on the premise that the two salient conflict variables are the relative importance of the relationships at hand and the substantive issues being discussed. These variables are illustrated with a simple matrix that shows how each party will interact with the other based on the relative importance it places on these variables. Graphically illustrating where the behaviors fall on the matrix can explicate parties' behaviors to add a new perspective that may change the dynamic of the conflict. But the TK Model does not address scenarios in which individuals have very negative or destructive relationships, and sabotage, blocking, and exclusion are behavioral norms. Hence, we developed the Baumoel–Trippe (BT) Extension to the TK Model to address the highly negative and often identity‐based conflicts that are often found in the world of family business. Accordingly, the BT Extension to the TK Model explores conflicts in which the relationships are not merely unimportant or uncooperative, but where they become negative to downright vengeful. There is so much at stake for family business stakeholders that the family relationships may become so adversarial that the very business and family harmony all parties value are at risk. With our extension of the TK Model, we seek to provide insight into how decisions might be made when stakeholders are in highly negative, conflictual relationships.     

论特别权力关系问题之解决路径——以“否定说”为视角

特别权力关系理论在近些年已经成为我国行政法的热门话题,行政法学者也对其进行了深入的研究和激烈的讨论,笔者探讨了目前我国是否需要特别权力关系理论,并且对于特别权力关系问题提出了相关解决路径.     

EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION IN DIVORCE CASES

Parties in a divorce case are faced with the challenge of dealing with highly charged emotional and financial issues simulataneously. Early Neutral Evaluation is a beneficial weapon in the dispute resolution arsenal that can help decrease the level of conflict between parties. This Note discusses the development of Early Neutral Evaluation as a form of dispute resolution and proposes the establishment of court-organized mandatory Early Neutral Evaluation programs to settle financial matters in a divorce case.     

现代社会中的人民调解与诉讼

人民调解是除诉讼之外的最主要的纠纷解决方式。人民调解的存在与发展在一定程度上弥补了诉讼在某类纠纷解决上的局限性。通过人民调解与诉讼在成本、功能上的比较,可以看到人民调解不仅能够适应和生存于现代社会,而且与公力救济共同形成了相互竞争、替代补充和弥补局限的多元化纠纷解决机制。人民调解的改革和发展是构建和谐社会纠纷解决机制的不可或缺的资源。     

论中国—东盟自由贸易区争端解决机制及其完善

中国—东盟自由贸易区始建于2002年《中国—东盟全面经济合作框架协议》的签署,按照规划将于2010年建成,它是一个包括11个成员国的区域经济一体化组织。本文考察了中国—东盟自由贸易区与其他自由贸易区的法律模式,并对其利弊得失作了恰如其分的比较,在此基础上分析了以2005年生效的《中国—东盟全面经济合作框架协议争端解决机制协议》为基础的中国—东盟自由贸易区争端解决机制的优点和存在的缺陷,探究了欧盟和北美自由贸易区的争端解决机制,提炼出可供借鉴的合理成分和可取之处,在总结归纳的同时,提出了完善和改进中国—东盟自由贸易区争端解决机制的具体建议和设想。     

国际民事诉讼管辖权与国际商事仲裁管辖权之比较

国际民事诉讼管辖权与国际商事仲裁管辖权是并行的两种解决国际民商事争议的制度,两者既有共同之处,亦存在着很多差异。为了厘清国际民事诉讼管辖权与国际商事仲裁管辖权之间的关系,本文从多个角度对两者的联系、区别及其冲突与协调三个方面进行了探讨。     

ADR与我国代替性纠纷解决机制的建立

ADR即代替性纠纷解决方式是在利益冲突多元化、社会关系复杂化和法院弊端日益显露的社会背景下发展起来的,以追 求纠纷的高效率、低成本解决为目标。我国纠纷解决机制发展经过了三个阶段,我国有必要建立代替性纠纷解决机制。     

对外国记者非法采访处置工作的几点思考

目前,外国记者非法采访处置工作存在着法律、法规不健全,缺乏可操作性;思想观念落后,对外国记者的认识片面;现场处置不规范,易授人以柄,造成被动;处置工作模式化,缺乏横向协作等问题.应该针对这些问题,结合新形势下首都公安工作的特点进一步做好外国记者非法采访处置工作.