VimarSeguros诉M／V．SkyReefer案后撤销外国法院管辖条款的尝试

本文主要介绍美国最高法院审理的 Sky Reefer案的判决对美国法院认定提单中外国法院管辖条款的效力产生的重大影响 ,并介绍了 SkyReefer案之前及之后发生的重要案例以认识美国法院对该条款的态度转变过程。最后 ,作者根据实践提出了自己主张的可行办法     

科学决策的思维模式——略论决策内容与不同特点思维的对应关系

科学决策过程是科学思维过程。笔者经过多年研究发现 ,决策程序的每一个环节、每一种决策技术、决策的每一种类型 ,都有特定的思维方式与之对应。本文即是对这种一一对应关系的专门研究     

An insight into forensic document examiner expertise for discriminating between forged and disguised signatures

It has previously been shown that forensic document examiners (FDEs) have expertise in providing opinions about whether questioned signatures are genuine or simulated. This study extends the exploration of FDE expertise by evaluating the performance of eight FDEs and 12 control subjects at identifying signatures as either forgeries or the disguised writing of a specimen provider. Subject eye movements and response times were recorded with a Tobii 1750 eye tracker during the signature evaluations. Using a penalty scoring system, FDEs performed significantly better than control subjects (t = 2.465, p = 0.024), with one FDE able to correctly call 13 of the 16 test stimuli (and three inconclusive calls). An analysis of eye movement search patterns by the subjects indicated that a very similar search strategy was employed by both groups, suggesting that visual inspection of signatures is mediated by a bottom up search strategy. However, FDEs spent greater than 50% longer to make a decision than the control group. The findings are suggestive that for some stimuli FDEs can discriminate between forgeries and disguises, and that this ability is due to a careful inspection and consideration of multiple features within a signature.     

心理学与司法决策:美国心理学会法庭之友辩护状的启示

美国"法庭之友"制度的盛行,为心理学家直接介入具体的诉讼案件提供了法律途径.介绍了美国心理学会通过向上诉法院特别是向最高法院提交法庭之友辩护状,为法官提供有关的心理学理论知识与经验研究结果以帮助其正确认定案件事实和有关法律问题,从而影响司法决策的运作概况及效果,评述了借鉴"法庭之友"制度对于完善我国现行司法制度的意义,以及美国心理学会法庭之友辩护状的运行对于我国增强司法能力建设的启示.     

中国小康社会建设的经济纲领——学习十六届三中全会《决定》的体会

党的十六届三中全会的《决定》,提出了许多新的经济思想和经济发展战略,是一个指导今后我国完善市场经济体制和建设小康社会的纲领性文件,本文从十个方面进行了简要的归纳。     

Criminal justice decision making as a stratification process: The role of race and stratification resources in pretrial release

Our purpose is to bridge the criminal justice and stratification research literatures and to pursue the argument that homologous structural principles stratify allocation processes across central institutions of American society. The principle observed here in the making of bail decisions, as in earlier studies of the allocation of earnings, is that stratification resources operate to the greater advantage of whites than blacks. The operation of this principle is established through the estimation of covariance structure models of pretrial release decisions affecting 5660 defendants in 10 federal courts. Education and income are treated in this study as observed components of a composite construct, stratification resources, which works to the greater advantage of whites. Prior record is also found to operate to the greater advantage of whites. Two further variables, dangerousness and community ties, increase bail severity among blacks and whites. While the effect of community ties has been legally legitimized since the Bail Reform Act of 1966, the effect of dangerousness was not so legitimized until the Bail Reform Act of 1984. However, because our data precede the latter act, they confirm that this act simply reinstitutionalized earlier practice. Meanwhile, our race-specific findings may explain why although this and earlier studies find negligible main effects of race on criminal justice outcomes, black Americans nonetheless perceive more criminal injustice than do whites. In the criminal justice system, as in other spheres of American society, whites receive a better return on their resources, but our findings that the statutory severity of the offense and dangerousness work to the relative disadvantage of white defendants challenges conflict and labeling theory's one-dimensional characterization of black defendant disadvantage.     

Vetospieler und die Durchsetzbarkeit von Side‐Payments

Once an agreement is signed at the international level, it can no longer be modified during the domestic decision‐making process. However, it is possible to compensate potential veto players by a purely domestic legislative act. Under which circumstances do such side‐payments make sense, and what is the role played by political strategies? In order to be compensated, an actor needs to be considered a veto player. Furthermore, the defenders of the international agreement must have a sufficiently large interest in its ratification to be willing to offer compensations. These basic conditions fulfilled, the existence or not of side‐payments depends on the strategic interactions between the political actors. In the last ten years, Swiss citizens had to vote twice on an international agreement establishing free movement of persons. In both cases, the unions asked for flanking measures; while they failed in their attempt in the context of the European Economic Area, they succeeded in the case of the bilateral agreements. This difference in outcome is all the more surprising since in both cases the unions were in a veto player position and the export oriented economy had a strong interest in the ratification of the agreements. This article explains the different fate of the unions' claims by stressing the role of changes in actor strategies. The credibility of the threat to block the decision‐making process and the succession of the game sequences are in this perspective of paramount importance. By using strategically the veto threat, domestic groups such as unions are able to benefit from internationalisation.     

反思行政诉讼之责令重作判决

责令重做判决是撤销判决的一种附带形式,立法上存在适用条件过于宽泛;缺乏对重作内容、期限的明确规定;对违法重作行为、拖延重作行为的约束和制裁措施缺乏力度等弊端。建议把一般性规定改为例外性规定,并对其适用加以严格限制。包括明确规定适用重作判决的标准和情形、限定重作的内容和期限、加大对逾期重作和违法重作行为的规制力度。     

Expertise in Fingerprint Identification

Although fingerprint experts have presented evidence in criminal courts for more than a century, there have been few scientific investigations of the human capacity to discriminate these patterns. A recent latent print matching experiment shows that qualified, court‐practicing fingerprint experts are exceedingly accurate (and more conservative) compared with novices, but they do make errors. Here, a rationale for the design of this experiment is provided. We argue that fidelity, generalizability, and control must be balanced to answer important research questions; that the proficiency and competence of fingerprint examiners are best determined when experiments include highly similar print pairs, in a signal detection paradigm, where the ground truth is known; and that inferring from this experiment the statement “The error rate of fingerprint identification is 0.68%” would be unjustified. In closing, the ramifications of these findings for the future psychological study of forensic expertise and the implications for expert testimony and public policy are considered.