欧洲国家宪法法官制度初论

在20世纪,欧洲生成并发展出颇具特色的宪法法院制度,宪法法官作为宪法法院的决策主体承担了保障宪政生活中的合宪性这一重要使命。它们普遍建立了精英型宪法法官体系,通过任命机制控制宪法法官构成,使之具有合理性;同时,它们极力保障宪法法官的独立性,为其提供充分的权利保障及物质支持,并通过严格规范职业行为来保障宪法法官有效履行职责。     

民事诉讼效率新论

民事诉讼效率的概念应该包涵于诉讼效益之中，基本涵义是提高单位时间内的办案数量。诉讼公正与诉讼效率是两个独立存在的价值范畴，既互相矛盾又协调、统一。影响诉讼效率的制度性因素主要包括诉讼程序、当事人制度、审判管理、法官职业化。     

中国法官任用机制:基于理念的初步评析

近30年来中国法官任用机制日益呈现出从干部理念向司法理念演变的趋势,当然迄今为止司法理念也未完全取代干部理念。当下,两种理念在演进、发展中微妙互动着,呈现出既各行其道又竞争互动的格局,使中国形成了一种任用标准国际化与任用程序本土化的独特的、二律背反的法官任用模式。对此,也许一种现代式的专业化与政治化兼顾且协调化的中国式理念与机制值得追寻,当然,其具体内容当有待通过实践来探索。     

The CSI effect and the Canadian and the Australian Jury

Television shows, such as CBS's CSI and its spin-offs CSI: Miami; CSI: Las Vegas; and CSI: New York, have sparked the imagination of thousands of viewers who want to become forensic scientists. The shows' fictional portrayals of crime scene investigations have prompted fears that jurors will demand DNA and other forensic evidence before they will convict, and have unrealistic expectations of that evidence. This has been dubbed the "CSI effect." This phenomenon was explored using results from a Canadian study based on 605 surveys of Canadian college students who would be considered jury-eligible and Australian quantitative and qualitative findings from a study that surveyed and interviewed real posttrial jurors. Information about the way jurors deal with forensic evidence in the context of other evidence and feedback about the way in which understanding such evidence could be increased were gained from both these studies. The comparison provides insights into the knowledge base of jurors, permitting adaptation of methods of presenting forensic information by lawyers and experts in court, based on evidence rather than folklore. While the Canadian juror data showed statistically significant findings that jurors are clearly influenced in their treatment of some forensic evidence by their television-viewing habits, reassuringly, no support was found in either study for the operation of a detrimental CSI effect as defined above. In the Australian study, in fact, support was found for the proposition that jurors assess forensic evidence in a balanced and thoughtful manner.     

民事主体与民事诉讼主体有限分离论之反思

对民事主体与民事诉讼主体的关系,我国现今学界主流持有限分离论。此论是对现行法律的误读及对两主体关系应然与实然的混淆。实体法与程序法在主体制度上的失衡,已成为两法共同有效地实现保障权利、解决民事纠纷、维护社会经济秩序等民事诉讼目的的巨大障碍。自然人、法人、非法人团体的"三元"民事主体结构,应成为我国民事立法关于民事主体结构构建的基本结构。民事主体与民事诉讼主体,应当是内涵有别但外延一致的关系。     

浅议我国级别管辖的规避及其防范

我国现行民事诉讼法关于级别管辖的规定较为粗糙,使一些当事人及法院得以借机采取各种手段规避级别管辖,实现其不正当利益。级别管辖规避的防范主要在于我国级别管辖制度的立法完善,具体可参照国外民事诉讼法的有关规定完善我国级别管辖的标准、级别管辖权异议制度及管辖权转移制度等。     

Is It Who You Know,or How Many That Counts? Criminal Networks and Cost Avoidance in a Sample of Young Offenders

The aim of the current study is to assess whether criminal networks can help young offenders avoid contacts with the criminal justice system. We examine the association between criminal network and cost avoidance specifically for the crime of cannabis cultivation in a rural region in Quebec, Canada. A self‐report delinquency survey, administered to the region's quasi‐population of high‐school students (N = 1,166), revealed that a total of 175 adolescents had participated in the cannabis cultivation industry (a 15% lifetime prevalence rate). Forty‐seven respondents (27%), including 29 who were arrested, reported having participated in a cultivation site that was detected by the police. Results indicate that “who you know” matters in the cultivation industry, and is an important independent predictor of arrest: very few young growers who were embedded in adult networks were apprehended. Conversely, embeddedness in a youth network emerged as an independent risk factor, especially embeddedness in larger networks.     

《中德税收协定》的现状与发展趋势

中德两国互为重要的经济贸易伙伴国。《中德税收协定》自1985年签订以来,成为两国解决双重征税和防止逃漏税问题的法律准则。然而,《中德税收协定》实施后,中国不断地推进税制改革,两国间经贸往来出现了新的形式,与此同时,国际税法理论也有了新的发展。因此,适时修改《中德税收协定》是必要的。尽管中国在德国的投资已有所发展,但是应当清醒地看到,中国仍是资本输入国,在修订《中德税收协定》时,应当坚持来源地管辖权为主和适当兼顾居民管辖权的原则。     

实质课税原则在税收规避治理中的运用

实质课税原则是税法上的一个颇具争议的原则,它强调在税法的解释和适用中透过形式追求实质,在运用中容易与强调税法形式的税收法定主义产生冲突。利用税法漏洞进行的避税活动,恰恰需要运用实质课税原则揭露纳税人在合法形式掩盖下规避税收的真实意图,以维护税收公平与正义。以税收公平原则理论为支撑,坚持税收法定主义框架之下法律上的实质课税原则,解决了实质课税原则在适用中的难题,是治理税收规避直接有效的方法,但是要根治避税依然要靠立法的完善。     

我国刑事司法制度中的卸责机制——以法院和法官为中心

由司法行为带来的责任包括法律责任、政治责任、道德责任等,这些责任在不同主体之间流动。司法规律和司法体制塑造了将责任汇集于法院最终由法官个人承担的责任分配体系。成为归责中心的法院和法官往往将自身压力往他处转移,形成以法院和法官为中心向四周其他主体扩散的卸责机制。卸责的手段主要有诉诸权威、规则依赖、对外转移和集体承担等。从机构层面看,法院通常将责任转移给检察机关和上下级法院;在个人层面上,法官则将责任转移给合议庭其他法官、陪审员、审判委员会以及被告人本人等。司法责任制改革在落实如何追责的前提下应当探索构建合理的卸责机制。相比于遇到瓶颈的“实体控制模式”,发挥程序功能对责任进行转移分担的“程序控制模式”效果更加显著且更易被法官所感知。