论执行程序中的参与分配制度

执行程序中的参与分配制度有其独立的属性和价值。目前的参与分配制度承载了破产制度应有的功能,应回归其本来的宗旨和目的。为克服平等主义和优先主义之固有缺陷,兼顾债权的平等性和个别执行程序的特点,我国参与分配制度应坚持折中原则。从参与分配制度的独立价值出发,参与分配的申请人原则上应是已取得执行依据的债权人,未取得执行依据的债权人不宜列为申请人。此外,对申请参与分配的期限应作合理规定,并建议增设分配方案异议和分配方案异议之诉等具体制度。     

Violent Punjab,quiescent Bengal,and the partition of India

Why did the Punjab bear the brunt of the mass violence and the migration that accompanied the partition of India? This paper makes the case for analytical eclecticism by showing that the following three explanations – centred respectively on democratisation, nationalism, and ideas; the commitment problem; and the security dilemma – account for the violence/migration in the different stages in the run-up to the partition of India. Instead of arguing that ‘everything mattered’, this paper elucidates the complex causality at work by demonstrating how these factors interacted with one another during the different stages leading to India’s partition.     

主观主义与客观主义之分野及趋同

客观主义从人的共同理性、人格同一性出发 ,以行为为中心 ,注重行为客观社会危害的犯罪评价 ;主观主义从人的超越理性、人格特殊性出发 ,以行为人为中心 ,强调行为人的人身危险性的犯罪评价。 1 9世纪以来 ,主观主义、客观主义由对立走向折衷、调和以至统一 ,形成了折衷主义。刑法典与司法运作折射着其背后的理论蕴含。在当代刑法中 ,量刑不仅要依据行为、实害、故意、过失 ,而且需考虑行为人的人身危险性 ,此为量刑之折衷 ;人身危险性从两个角度介入定罪 ,是为定罪之折衷。     

浅议犯罪心理

犯罪心理是犯罪行为生成的前提,也是行为人承担刑事责任的依据。行为人的行为只有在具备犯罪心理的情况下才构成犯罪。"无犯意则无犯罪",犯罪心理已经成为刑法的必备要件。     

刑事诉讼法修改应以调整诉讼结构为切入点

我国刑事诉讼结构一直呈现强职权主义倾向。为改变这一模式下控、辩、审三种职能失衡所进行的庭审方式改革,又带来侦查、起诉结构中的强职权主义与审判结构中的弱当事人主义之间的冲突。据此,刑事诉讼法修改应继续将调整诉讼结构作为切入点,在巩固已有成果的同时把改革向前延伸,以构建完善和谐的新型诉讼关系。     

再论《文心雕龙》"折衷"论的文化涵义--兼与高华平先生商榷

<文心雕龙>"折衷"的方法论一度成为论者关注的焦点,迄至今日,有关"折衷"的探讨依然热力不减.就目前情况来看,仅从方法论的角度来探讨似乎再难有深入的开掘.而"折衷"实等于"折中",即折于中国固有的"中"文化.以"中"的变动生成观来解读<文心雕龙>的"折衷"论而求其承载的文化涵义或许能更有效地展示中国文论的特色.     

Transatlantic burden sharing: suggesting a new research agenda

ABSTRACT

Current studies on NATO burden sharing are only able to show some weak statistical trends between selective variables; they are unable to explain and show why this trend exists and why it occurred at particular times (or not). This is due to the dominant deductive and hypothesis testing research designs that prevent researchers to produce richer causal explanations or intersubjective understandings of how states, for example, construct and assign meaning to burdens or what forms of social representation, values, norms and ideals influence the making of (national) burden sharing decisions. Thus, we charge, the literature needs to adopt an eclecticist approach to studying NATO burden sharing – that is to combine rationalist with sociological approaches and methodologies highlighting the importance of intersubjective meanings and the role of social forces, norms, beliefs, and values. The article lays out what such a research programme might look like and how one could operationalise it.     

并合主义：犯罪未遂的应然立场

总体上,应当以并合主义作为犯罪未遂认定和处罚中所应坚持的基本立场。在着手认定标准和犯罪未遂处罚依据的确定上,应坚持以形式的客观说为主、实质的客观说为辅;在犯罪未遂处罚原则的确定上,则应坚持以主观主义为主、兼顾客观主义。不可罚的不能犯是现实存在的,它不具有形式和实质上的犯罪特征,因而不是犯罪,不具有可罚性。     

论刑法解释的目标——以刑法人权保障功能实现为视角

刑法解释论上的主观说、客观说和折衷说所确立的刑法解释目标都有不利于刑法人权保障功能实现的缺陷,因而刑法解释的目标应确立为寻求刑法立法时刑法规定的客观意思,即立法本意;只有立法本意不符合保障人权要求时,才允许扩大或缩小立法本意的范围,作出有利于行为人的解释。     

No humanitarian intervention in Asian genocides: how possible and legitimate?

Abstract

This article addresses an important empirical puzzle: why has the United States, without exception, chosen not to intervene in the six humanitarian catastrophes in post-war Asia, namely in Indonesia, East Pakistan/Bangladesh, Cambodia, East Timor, Sri Lanka and Myanmar? We use an eclectic approach that blends arguments about the international normative structure and geostrategic interests to examine what has made the absence of humanitarian intervention in Asia by the US possible and legitimate. Specifically, we focus on the paradox between calls for humanitarian intervention and the historically and geographically contingent social construction of the norms of humanity, national sovereignty and United Nations-backed multilateralism in conjunction with US and Chinese concerns over their regional geostrategic interests. The normative narratives about race, ‘communists’, ‘terrorists’, international order and inclusive multilateral processes, and the geostrategic interests of the US and China, combine to make non-intervention possible and legitimate.