Domestic scrutiny of European Union politics: Between whistle blowing and opposition control

Some European law proposals are subject to scrutiny by national parliaments while others go unchecked. The analysis in this article indicates that the opposition scrutinises European Union law to gather information on the proceedings inside the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Yet whereas strong opposition parties scrutinise highly politicised law proposals, weak opposition parties tend to scrutinise those proposals that are negotiated under the non‐transparent fast‐track procedure. In addition, there is ample evidence that the leading minister initiates scrutiny in order to strengthen his or her intergovernmental bargaining leverage. Yet, this Schelling Conjecture presumes that the party of the minister is located between the expected bargaining position in the Council and the coalition partner. Any other domestic interest constellation could lead to scrutiny motivated by whistle blowing. However, an issue's salience helps us to separate the whistle blowing from the Schelling Conjecture.     

作为“中介”的“复合平等”——沃尔泽对罗尔斯分配正义理论的批判及其限度

沃尔泽认为,罗尔斯通过＂原初状态设置＂所演绎出的＂正义二原则＂只是一种实现通常之＂简单平等＂的分配正义原则,无法解决由诸多领域所构成之社会的分配正义问题。因而基于对西方世界分配现状的观察及其人性观,沃尔泽提出了＂复合平等＂的分配正义理论。事实上,只有罗尔斯的＂正义二原则＂才能有效实现社会的分配正义。因此,沃尔泽的分配正义理论实际上只是深刻理解罗尔斯＂正义二原则＂的＂过渡理论＂或＂中介＂,而不是对后者的根本性超越。     

“一事不二罚”在行刑交叉案件中的适用——从一例危险驾驶案切入

在处理行刑交叉案件时,厘清"一事"、"二罚"的关系,适度延伸"一事不二罚原则"的适用范围对于划清权力界限、保护公民权利、节约执法、司法成本均有重大意义。行刑交叉案件中的"一事不二罚原则"应该贯彻行政处罚与刑事处罚在罚责内容上的"有限并科"、"同质罚责刑事优先,相异罚责各自适用"以及"及时移送"三大核心内容。     

关于常见树皮浸提物的荧光光谱分析

近年来随着微量物证鉴定技术水平的提高,微量物证在各种案件的侦破过程中发挥出越来越重要的作用。树皮是在凶杀、盗窃、毁坏树木、交通事故案件中常见的一种微量物证。文章利用荧光光谱法、一阶导数荧光光谱法对常见树皮的浸提物进行了分析。结果表明,不同树种树皮浸提物的荧光光谱图呈现的峰数、峰位及峰形有一定的差异;一阶导数光谱图中正、负峰的峰数及振幅值的比值差异显著,从而确定了利用荧光光谱法鉴定树皮种类的依据。     

Establishing of chemical composition of printing ink

The subject of the examinations was primarily court tax marks of 50 and 200 PLN, which were suspected not to be genuine. Both inks on the questioned marks as well as comparative genuine marks and inks sent by the manufacturer were analyzed. No information about their chemical composition was available from manufacturer. In the examinations, infrared (IR), visible, X-ray fluorescence, and Raman spectrometry were used. The examinations showed that inks and glue on the marks of both values were the same as samples of those sent by the manufacturer. Discrepancies in some results were observed probably due to contamination, that is, an accidental presence of the foreign substance on the surface (e.g., sweat, saliva while sticking the marks to the surface or physical handling of the documents). It was concluded that there are original (genuine) court tax marks.