Reprinted from Vol. 44 No. 4 in Honor of Professor J. Herbie DiFonzo. The Family Law Education Reform Project Final Report†

The Family Law Education Reform Project (the FLER Project) is co‐sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra Law School. This Final Report is based on a series of dialogues between family law academics and practitioners from many disciplines, a FLER Project survey, and research conducted by law students at Hofstra University and Northeastern University. 2     

平安建设与当前社会不稳定因素的关联分析

平安建设的过程就是遏制和清除社会不稳定因素的过程,所以平安建设与社会不稳定因素是直接的因果关系。从社会控制论的角度分析,当前影响平安建设的社会不稳定因素主要集中在三个方面:刑事犯罪、因权利主张而引起的利益纷争及社会生成问题。作为基础性因素的社会生成问题是影响平安建设的深层的、核心的因素,而这一因素的核心表现在于社会离心力倾向。通过对社会不稳定因素的关联分析,在现实状况下,平安建设的重心应放在对社会向心力的聚合和对社会治理的善治的选择上。     

对国际商事仲裁裁决司法监督的论争及评析

关于对国际商事仲裁裁决进行司法监督的范围 ,在我国有程序监督论、双重监督论和折衷论三种观点。本文对国际上有关仲裁的立法和实践的趋势、我国仲裁立法和实践的具体情况 ,以及和仲裁制度本身的价值取向进行考察和论证 ,提出了相关立法建议。     

完善劳动争议诉讼制度的几点思考

根据<中华人民共和国劳动法>及其相关规定,劳动争议的解决遵循的是"一调一裁两审"的处理模式.劳动争议诉讼是当事人解决争议的最后途径.当前,没有独立的<劳动争议处理法>和<劳动争议诉讼法>,人民法院审理劳动争议案件依据的是民事诉讼法的相关规定,这在实践中产生了很多问题.因为劳动关系与民事关系、劳动法律关系与民事法律关系的性质是截然不同的.用处理平等主体之间的财产关系和人身关系纠纷的民事诉讼法来处理表面平等而实质上不平等的主体之间的劳动争议,是极为不妥的.     

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.”     

The Silent Reform of Swiss Federalism: The New Constitutional Articles on Education

This article examines the decision‐making process leading to the new constitutional articles on education in Switzerland. It analyzes how actors from both state levels (Confederation and cantons) could reach consensus in a process that was prone to a “joint‐decision trap”. To that end, we hypothesize which factors may be conducive to a “problem‐solving” style of policy‐making in a compulsory negotiation system. Rich empirical material from various sources supports our theoretical arguments: We show that shared beliefs and a common frame of reference, the procedural separation between constitutional and distributional issues, neutral brokers, and informal structures were all beneficial to the success of the reform project.     

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。     

非政府组织与世界贸易组织争端解决机制

本文叙述了非政府组织作为“法庭之友”参与WTO争端解决机制的理论与实践及其纷争,对此作了较为深入的价值分析和理论阐释,进而提出了解决这一问题的可能思路、制度设计和情境设置,并指出了其对于国际经济法理论与实践发展趋势的意义蕴涵。本文认为,“法庭之友”问题表明WTO争端解决机制必须谋求外交方法与司法方法的平衡,尤其应该确认争端解决机制的司法独立和自由裁量,并应从多重视域中谋求一种多元互动的解决之道。     

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。