Kenneth B. Clark and the problem of power

ABSTRACT

During the early 1960s African American psychologist Kenneth B. Clark, known primarily for his involvement in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education US Supreme Court desegregation decision, began organizing an ambitious anti-poverty programme called Harlem Youth Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. (HARYOU). Dissatisfied by the lack of progress in school desegregation in New York City and discouraged by the inability of traditional social welfare organizations to address the problems of race and poverty, Clark argued that a new approach had to be developed to mobilize the black poor to gain the political and economic power that would solve their problems. At the same time, he theorized that a new form of racial segregation was beginning to develop in urban areas that foreshadowed increasing social isolation, economic dependence and declining municipal services for many African Americans. He called this new development ‘internal colonialism’ and hoped that HARYOU would be a demonstration project in the Kennedy–Johnson administration's War on Poverty that would address these problems from multiple perspectives. Nonetheless, the plan aroused the political opposition of Harlem Congressman Adam Clayton Powell. The dispute with Powell drove Clark from HARYOU and caused him to re-evaluate his thinking regarding African American leadership. He increasingly viewed the ‘ghetto’ as both a prison and a cocoon that satisfied white and black social, economic, political and psychological needs. By the end of his HARYOU experience, Clark coined the term ‘the new American dilemma’ to describe and theorize about an increasingly isolated and powerless black population in many urban centres. The term also signified his belief that the problem of power was intricately tied up in, while also separate from, the problem of race.     

论中国特色社会主义文化发展道路

中国特色社会主义文化发展道路,是中国共产党人艰难实践抉择与自觉理论探索的结果。社会主义核心价值观、人民群众依靠力量、科学发展路径、改革创新动力,从不同侧面揭示了中国特色社会主义文化发展道路的内涵。建设社会主义文化强国,应该在增强国家文化软实力、激发文化创作生产活力、维护国家文化安全方面进行不懈努力。     

Australia and the Baltic States, 1919–1945

Praised by international organizations, Estonia and Slovenia have long been considered among the most successful post-communist states. Estonia quickly transformed itself into one of the most liberal economies in the world, whereas Slovenia opted for a social justice-oriented market economy. Still, the roots of their success coincide in that consensus played a crucial role. We argue that the public sphere was never as repressed in Estonia and Slovenia during the communist period as it was elsewhere. Distinct national identities continued to be formed and re-formed by intellectuals during the decades of communist rule, who assumed roles as political leaders when the transition started. Consensus based on these national identities legitimized reform policies for the entire decade of the 1990s.     

日本观光立国战略模式及启示

在世界上主要发达国家当中,把旅游业作为国家发展战略的除日本之外绝无仅有。研究日本观光立国战略的内容及其政策措施与成效,并在此基础上实现从实践到理论的升华,即从日本观光立国战略的实践总结国家旅游发展战略的模式,进而为中国推动旅游业发展提供理论基础和理论参考。日本观光立国战略模式可以归纳为确定一个战略目标、制定一个战略规划、实施4个重点战略、构建一个支持系统等内容。日本观光立国战略模式对中国制定国家旅游发展战略具有重要的参考价值。     

我国引航法律制度研究

引航,旧称引水、领港、领江,是指在一定的引航区域内（港口或内河）,专门性的从业人员（即引航员）登上船舶,为船舶指引航向,把船舶安全地引进、带出港口或在港内移泊。引航是一种资源,具有公益性和主权性。引航的目的不是为了盈利,而是提供公共服务。由于港口的航道条件构成了一个国家的天然屏障,事关一国的国防,因而按照国际惯例,引航员必须由本国人担任,并且对出入港口的外国籍船舶实行强制引航。这是一个国家引航权的体现,是国家主权的一部分。本文针对我国引航体制改革,结合国际相关立法,对我国引航法律制度所涉及引航管理体制模式、引航机构资质管理、引航员资质管理以及引航作业中法律责任加以研究。     

公法不当得利及其救济

随着给付行政的兴起,公法实践中出现了因欠缺法律原因而发生的财产变动。在适用民法不当得利制度无法解决的情况下,基于依法行政以及财产权保护的需要,应确立公法不当得利制度。在公法不当得利中,行政主体和行政相对人均可享有公法不当得利返还请求权,而此种请求权则可以通过做出行政行为以及提起行政给付诉讼的形式加以救济。     

检察机关提起民事公益诉讼之权力解析及程序构建

我国的检察权是一种复合型的权力,法律监督权和公诉权是其最主要的两种权能,这两种权力在本质上存在不可兼容性。检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的权力源自其公诉职能。检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的制度构建应该首先在宪法上明确其公诉职能,并以此为据,在《人民检察院组织法》和《民事诉讼法》中确定检察机关在民事公益诉讼中的"公诉人"地位,设置检察机关提起公益诉讼的特别程序。     

市场规制中的执法权冲突及其解决路径

清晰的执法权配置是提高市场规制质量的首要条件。在我国竞争法实施过程中,频繁发生的执法权冲突现象严重影响着市场规制的质量。如何解决执法权冲突,是一个兼具理论和实践意义的课题。从程序主义视角,国务院相关部委和最高人民法院都难以从根本上解决这一）中突,只有全国人大常委会及其授权立法机构才是最合适的裁决者。从实体主义视角,构建公权力的横向配置理论才是解决执法权冲突的根本。该理论认为,执法权应当配置给能以最低的管理成本完成管理目标的主体。影响管理成本的核心要素包括规制机构的重置成本、信息获取成本、管制俘获和多元执法机构的协调成本,这些要素所组成的成本衡量体系是配置执法权的一个基本分析框架。     

国人对民决团在英美法庭中的功能的误解

民决团仅仅负责事实审,决定事实问题;法官则负责法律审,决定法律问题。这个认识的错误在于：普通法中没有“事实审”、“法律审”的术语,这是国人杜撰出来的。普通法事实发展出来法律,法律是事实的积累。民决团事实上既决定法律又决定事实。它在美国,具有最高权力,大于总统、国会和最高法庭。另外民决团在美国7个州还决定量刑,在有死刑的州,还决定死刑。事实与法律的区分和混合,有助于法官将复杂问题交给民决团决定并在上诉中捍卫民决团的最高权力;也有助于法官对法律问题下命令、进行违宪性审查。总之,理解民决团的最高权力,是理解普通法的关键。     

论行政执法程序抗辩权的概念

学界关于行政执法程序抗辩权概念的诸观点具有一定的启发与借鉴意义,但也呈现出些许缺憾。文章通过对现有概念的反思与扬弃,重构了行政执法程序抗辨权的内涵,展现了行政执法程序抗辩权的外延,并阐明了行政执法程序抗辩权与行政执法程序抵抗权及行政诉讼辩论权等相关范畴的界限。