The Public Relevance of International Security Research in an Era of Globalism

International relations specialists have frequently questioned whether their academic research and teaching has any impact on the "real world." The record of success is generally believed to be a spotty one. While there is no denying that academics have informed aspects of policymaking, the concern remains that the great bulk of international studies research is too abstract, specialized, or linguistically incestuous to reach the light of day in policy circles. We argue that the relationship between the pursuit of peace and security and the study of it is more complex than is captured by the classic policy–research divide. The argument rests on two observations: First, to assess the public impact of peace and security studies, one must focus on how practices within a variety of institutional contexts, not just state policies, are transformed. Second, it is not scholarship per se that has a measurable public impact, but the interplay of research, practical innovation, and advocacy. We derive these observations from a review of the work of Social Science Research Council–MacArthur Program fellows over the fifteen-year life of that program.     

经济法律责任独立性探讨

对法律责任划分标准的正确理解,是认识经济法律责任独立存在的前提条件。经济法律责任是以法律责任的部 门法性质为标准对法律责任进行分类的结果,且经济法律责任具有其独特性。独立的经济法律责任体制有利于 责权利效相统一原则的实现;更能体现经济法的"社会本位"性;充分发挥经济法作为独立部门法的作用;促进经 济法主体守法和执法。构建时,必须遵循经济法自身体系要求,体现经济法律责任自身特色,形式上可以与其他 部门法形式相交叉,可通过经济法中的民事责任、经济法中的行政责任、经济法中的刑事责任、经济法中的经济责 任的方式来实现。     

Quantitative Differentiation of Bloodstain Patterns Resulting from Gunshot and Blunt Force Impacts

Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) provides significant evidentiary value in crime scene interpretation and reconstruction. In this work, we develop a quantitative methodology using digital image analysis techniques to differentiate impact bloodstain patterns. The bloodstain patterns were digitally imaged and analyzed using image analysis algorithms. Our analysis of 72 unique bloodstain patterns, comprising more than 490,000 individual droplet stains, indicates that the mean drop size in a gunshot spatter pattern is at most 30% smaller than the mean drop stain size in blunt instrument patterns. In contrast, we demonstrate that the spatial distribution of the droplet stains—their density as a function of position in the pattern—significantly differs between gunshot and blunt instrument patterns, with densities as much as 400% larger for gunshot impacts. Thus, quantitative metrics involving the spatial distribution of droplet stains within a bloodstain pattern can be useful for objective differentiation between blunt instrument and gunshot bloodstain patterns.     

以危险方法危害公共安全罪何以成为口袋罪

从道路交通秩序领域到市场经济秩序领域、公民个人权利领域、社会管理秩序领域,以危险方法危害公共安全罪的触角已经越伸越长。从交通肇事到生产经营非食品原料、"碰瓷"、偷窨井盖,危险方法行为犯罪行为方式可谓五花八门。以危险方法危害公共安全罪越来越显示出口袋罪的特征。产生这一结果固然有罪名本身的因素,但根本原因在于三个方面:一是对于刑事政策的不合理解读,二是对于社会效果内容的片面阐释,三是无视罪名的确定性内容。其实质是忽视了政策与规范之间的关系,过分关注结果的危害性而淡化了行为规范内容和主观心态。只有在司法中切实坚持罪刑法定原则,才不致使以危险方法危害公共安全罪成为口袋罪。     

侵权责任法背景下再议医疗侵权适用举证责任倒置

医疗侵权损害赔偿诉讼中,举证责任的分配可能对判决结果产生重大影响,关乎到能否有力地保护医患双方合法权益,因而成为医学界与法学界共同关注的热点问题之一。2002年4月1日起施行的〈〈最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》,是我国第一次以司法解释的形式规定医疗侵权诉讼适用“举证责任倒置”。本文中,笔者将主要针对《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》实施后对“医疗侵权诉讼适用举证责任倒置”的影响以及今后立法趋势等方面做出阐释与论述。     

正交试验设计辅助Pc-Crash实现事故再现分析

目的利用Pc-Crash实现事故再现分析时,探索由参数敏感性分析方法确定那些对仿真结果有显著影响的参数,通过对这些参数进行合理处理尝试提高仿真结果的精度。方法引入基于正交试验设计的参数敏感性分析方法。结果将此方法应用到Pc-Crash优化计算器内参数敏感性分析的实践中,获得了对碰撞后车辆运行轨迹有影响显著的参数。通过对一实际碰撞试验的再现研究,验证了敏感性分析所得结论在指导优化参数选取方面的有效性。结论研究表明借助正交试验设计辅助Pc-Crash实现事故再现分析具有实用价值。     

强迫交易罪实行行为与抢劫罪实行行为的辨析

强迫交易罪是1997年刑法典新增加的罪名,是维护社会主义市场经济秩序、完善社会主义经济的重要刑事立法。强迫交易罪的实行行为既是一个有研究价值的课题,同时也是一个非常新颖的研究课题,在我国理论界,许多与其相关的问题仍存在争议。强迫交易罪的实行行为与抢劫罪的实行行为均为复合实行行为,在暴力、威胁的手段行为与交易的目的行为方面存在诸多相似之处,因而存在种种易混淆之处,使得抢劫罪的实行行为和强迫交易罪的实行行为的区分存在一定的难度,必须从理论上予以明确区分。     

《联合国反腐败公约》与我国特殊侦查手段立法

特殊侦查手段在实践办案中被经常使用,但因缺乏法律依据,使得特殊侦查措施往往存在诸多问题。我国是《联合国反腐败公约》的缔约国,《公约》允许使用特殊侦查手段,并允许法庭采信由这些手段产生的证据。     

我国刑法增设“危险驾驶罪”的法理探析

危险驾驶行为具有严重的社会危害性,现行法律对危险驾驶的立法规定不足,交通肇事罪与以危险方法危害公共安全罪无法正确评价该行为,有必要对危险驾驶行为进行准确地界定,在刑法中单独增设危险驾驶罪,将酒后驾驶、飙车等危险驾驶行为纳入刑法规制范围,作为交通肇事罪和以危险方法危害公共安全罪之间的过渡性罪名。     

The European Commission's Opinions under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive

The contribution examines the Opinions which the European Commissionhas issued so far under Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43 (HabitatsDirective). It examines Member States' reasoning for justifyingthe application of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive inthe light of the European Court of Justice rulings, and comesto the conclusion that probably not one of the cases submittedwould have been accepted by the Court.