纵向限制竞争协议与横向限制竞争协议的比较

纵向限制竞争协议主要影响同一品牌内部的竞争,因而对纵向限制竞争协议,主要应看一方当事人的市场力量如何,以及对竞争者的排斥效果如何。由于纵向限制竞争协议积极效果更加突出,因而不像横向限制竞争协议那样受到严格的控制,本身违法规则适用范围有限,除了转售价格维持与绝对的地域保护以外,对其他纵向限制竞争协议均应适用合理规则进行分析。     

关于制约非公经济发展的体制瓶颈的几点思考

我国非公有制经济已成为社会主义市场经济的重要组成部分,成为发展生产力和完善社会主义市场经济体制的重要力量。但非公有制经济的发展也面临着种种困难和问题,影响非公有制经济发展的观念、制度、政策和管理等方面的制约因素依然存在。全面深入推进经济体制改革,努力构建非公经济发展的良好制度环境,才能扫除非公有制经济发展道路上的种种障碍,推动非公有制经济发展再上新台阶。     

网络安全的战略选择

随着网络空间的迅速扩张及其对社会各领域的全面渗透,网络空间不断增长的财富、战略价值以及世界经济社会运行对网络空间的深度依赖,使网络空间整体安全问题的重要性日益凸显,网络安全已成为国际社会面临的又一全球性公共问题。网络安全问题虽然属于国家安全范畴内的非传统安全领域,但国家对于安全的偏好没有改变,对安全追求的逻辑路径依旧。从理论的角度看,由于体系压力以及国家对于安全的追求,国家会选择制衡的战略,但在现实中,制衡经常缺位或迟到。受到非传统安全环境影响,地缘战略中分而治之、领土补偿、加强军备、联盟以及平衡手的存在等制衡方式和作用、意义同时发生了变化。细分到网络安全领域,沟通机制的不同、威慑效果不同、行为体的多样、行为判断的困难等特殊性,导致在网络安全领域,国家选择追随或合作将成为更优选择。     

Preparing NATO for the Future – Operating in an Increasingly Contested Environment

The global proliferation of precision-strike systems may be challenging the foundations of Western military-technological supremacy. Relatedly, the development of so-called Anti-Access and Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities across the globe threatens to complicate Western freedom of military movement and access, and could give way to a more contested military-strategic environment. The twin challenges of precision-strike proliferation and A2/AD strongly impact NATO’s agenda, which revolves around strengthening deterrence and defence in Eastern Europe, and addressing the different threats emanating from the so-called Southern European neighbourhood. In order to address or mitigate such challenges, the Alliance needs to produce operational concepts and capabilities able to deliver deterrence and expeditionary warfare in a maturing precision-strike environment, one characterised by the emergence of A2/AD capabilities.     

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the context of South Caucasus regional security issues: An Armenian perspective†

For more than a quarter-century, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been one of the most important factors influencing the political map of the South Caucasus. On 12 May 1994, Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, and Azerbaijan signed a cease-fire agreement that ended military operations in the conflict zone and has been observed until recently. Negotiations for a peaceful settlement have been underway within the framework of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk Group co-chaired by the USA, Russia, and France since 1992, but society and the elite in Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan remain largely unprepared for compromise. Considering the settlement process a zero-sum game, they have generally accused one another of escalating the conflict and of a lack of willingness to restore peace. Other countries and international organizations involved in the negotiations do not share a vision of the future and frequently pursue their own interests. Accordingly, the Karabakh conflict could remain unresolved for decades more. The aim of the paper is a general assessment of the current stage and dynamic of this conflict and the impact of new trends and old obstacles on the prospects for further settlement.     

“Vivimos en Jaula de Oro”: The Impact of State-Level Legislation on Immigrant Latino Families

This study sought to learn from Latino immigrant parents which and how state-level immigration policies impact their families. Fifty-four Latino immigrant parents participated in interviews. Constructivist grounded theory methods were used to complete the analysis. Results indicate that fear of detainment, deportation, and family separation affects participants emotionally and behaviorally. Participants experience exploitive practices in the workplace and through traffic infractions. Social support networks are constantly changing and weakened when families relocate in search of immigrant friendly communities. Simultaneously, parents develop strategies to protect their families against stringent immigration enforcement. Implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed.     

Long-term consequences of being placed in disciplinary segregation†

Being placed in restrictive housing is considered one of the most devastating experiences a human can endure, yet a scant amount of research has been conducted to test how this experience affects core indicators of prisoner reentry such as employment and recidivism. In this article, we use Danish registry data, which allow for us to link penal conditions to postrelease outcomes, to show how the reentry outcomes of individuals placed in disciplinary segregation, which is placement in restrictive housing because of disciplinary infractions, compare with those sanctioned for in-prison offenses but not placed in segregation. The results from matched difference-in-differences analyses show that Danish inmates placed in disciplinary segregation experience larger drops in employment and larger increases in the risk of being convicted of a new crime in the 3 years after release from a correctional facility than do Danish inmates who were sanctioned for a serious offense but not placed in disciplinary segregation as a result. Because being placed in disciplinary segregation, and restrictive housing more broadly, is so common, these results indicate that restrictive housing placement may be a key moderator of the effects of incarceration that merits more attention from criminologists, provided the associations shown here represent causal effects and generalize.     

进攻性联盟、模糊性威慑与AUKUS的战略性扩张

2021年9月15日,美国、英国和澳大利亚建立三边安全伙伴关系(AUKUS)。美英澳三国基于追求权力最大化、改变既有国际秩序的扩张性动机,构建进攻性联盟。美国企图巩固印太地区霸权;英国试图提升印太地区影响力,推动“全球英国”构想;澳大利亚希图扩张在印太地区的威慑力,强化南太平洋区域强国地位。AUKUS的威慑功能具有模糊性,主要体现在威慑对象及触发条件的模糊性。其模糊性威慑主要包括模糊性威慑的信号功能、震慑功能、作战功能、信息和情报共享功能、军工合作功能。AUKUS通过模糊性威慑功能实现美国在印太地区的战略性扩张;威胁中国国家安全和阻挠中国统一进程;诱使印度深化与三国战略合作;引发东盟国家意见分歧;加速欧盟防务自主进程;削弱国际核不扩散机制,恶化地区安全形势,对全球及地区安全局势产生消极影响。     

关于韩国对朝鲜投资的制约因素及其对策

朝鲜半岛北南关系的改善为韩国对朝鲜投资开拓了广的前景,但投资的制约因素依然存在,因此,要探讨新的投资途径。     

The Economics of Cruel and Unusual Punishment

It has sometimes been argued that one way to reduce the costs of law enforcement would be to reduce the probability of detection and conviction (hence saving those costs), while at the same time increasing the size of the punishment. Following this strategy would keep the expected costs (to a risk neutral criminal) of committing a crime constant and hence keep the deterrence level constant; it would have the benefit, though, of reducing costs to the rest of society.There are some well-known objections to such a policy. One such objection deals with marginal deterrence: A convicted murderer serving a life sentence with no chance of parole in a jurisdiction which bans capital punishment has nothing to lose from killing a prison guard—there is no marginal deterrence to the commission of a more serious crime or any additional crime for that matter. In fact, so long as there remains any upper limit to the amount of punishment that can be inflicted upon a convicted criminal, the only ways to create some type of marginal deterrence are to reduce the punishments for less serious crimes, which will either reduce the deterrence of those less serious crimes, or alternatively to require the use of more of society's scarce resources to increase the probabilities of apprehension and conviction.It is possible to reduce this marginal deterrence problem, however, by practicing cruel and unusual punishment on perpetrators of serious crimes, i.e. by raising the limits of allowable punishment. Anecdotal evidence suggests this practice is followed unofficially with child molesters and killers of prison guards and hence provides some additional deterrence against these crimes.Despite the theoretical validity of this argument, our society has chosen to impose a constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, over time we seem to have lowered the threshold of what is considered cruel and unusual. Following Dr. Pangloss, the concluding section of the paper examines why rational maximizers would choose to give up this additional potential deterrence. The explanations depend upon an assumed positive income elasticity of demand for humanitarianism or for insurance against the costs of punishing the innocent. While there are some reasons to accept the humanitarianism argument, the insurance argument seems more persuasive.