联合培养模式下法学藏汉双语教学的进路——以甘肃民族师范学院为例

目前,法学藏汉双语人才培养过程中还存在着培养目标模糊、师资和教材的匮乏、实际人才需求与培养目标之间存在差距等问题。文章以甘肃民族师范学院法学藏汉双语专业人才培养为例,以具体培养模式和教学活动为切入点,指出问题的同时,提出一些建议和思考。     

普通共同诉讼的权限分配与范围界定

我国普通共同诉讼的实体要件过于单一,限于诉讼标的同一种类;程序要件较为僵硬,要求当事人与法院双重同意。这就使普通共同诉讼在司法实践中较难成立,适用范围比较狭窄,既难以发挥合并审理的诉讼效率功能,也无法承接必要共同诉讼的程序边界。普通共同诉讼的理论重构应当注重权限分配与范围界定。前者须合理协调当事人的程序异议权与法院的程序裁决权,限制合并管辖的适用情形,区分合并管辖与合并审理的不同定位。后者须明确普通共同诉讼与必要共同诉讼的进阶性顺位关系,必要共同诉讼应以合一确定的必要性而非诉讼标的共同为判断标准,普通共同诉讼须以诉讼标的同种且基础事实同种、基础事实同一或基础事实存在牵连关系三者作为合并审理的客观标准。     

The Impact of Court Delays on the Prosecutor and the Defendant: An Economic Analysis

One important aspect of the economic theory of criminal court delay is to understand how the prosecutor and the defendant make their decisions, and how these respond to changes in trial delay. If both parties jointly maximise expected utility, trial delay may increase or decrease the number of trials, depending upon the decision makers' attitudes towards risk. The main policy implication is that providing the criminal courts with more resources in the form of additional judges and court capacity may lengthen the trial queue rather than shorten it. This is a counterintuitive result contrary to popular belief.     

中小企业外部股权融资难的原因分析

目前,我国中小企业外部股权融资还面临着诸多困难。构建制度环境是缓解中小企业外部股权融资困境的主要途径。     

《物权法》所有权概念的分析

所有权不仅是物权法,而且是整个民法中最为重要的概念之一。《物权法》第39条对所有权进行了描述性地定义,既继承了民法通则对所有权定义的传统,又揭示了所有权概念的部分内涵,具有一定的积极意义。但是,它没有囊括所有权的消极权能,更没有揭示出所有权作为“排他性支配权”的本质内涵。     

集体土地所有权立法的妥当性分析

物权法草案维持了农村土地集体所有权,这是立法者斟酌历史和现实的妥当选择。第一次规定了该权利行使的意思机关,完善了集体土地所有权制度。但草案仍然沿用现行法规定集体土地的三种所有权类型、规定集体经济组织为集体土地所有权行使的代表、不规定权利行使的监督组织,是不妥当的。应该取消乡(镇)、村民小组集体土地所有权,统一为村集体所有。集体经济组织在现实中和立法上都非常混乱,不适宜作为集体土地所有权行使代表。     

Family-owned,limited close corporations and protection of ownership

Protected ownership and freedom of contracts are two basic parts of the institutional framework of successful countries according to Douglass North, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1993. The incentives to make long-term investments are strengthened if ownership rights are protected and freedom of contracts is a basic element in the process of efficient allocation of scarce resources. An important engine in prosperous societies is the family firm. Most companies in these societies can be classified as family firms and a major part of GDP is produced by family businesses. Consequently, how ownership is protected in family firms is an important issue.Three important factors of private ownership of property are the rights to determine use of owned assets, the return generated from them and to transfer the assets at mutually agreeable terms to a new owner(s).The incentives of a founder entrepreneur to put efforts into the establishment of a firm are determined by all the three factors. We will here pay special attention to the third factor, transfer of the ownership of the firm. The founder often places contractual restrictions on such transfers to ensure that the structure of ownership is stable and that the firm stays in the family. The possibility to do so is part of the freedom of contracts and is associated with the extent of ownership held as well as the incentives to invest in new businesses.This paper is primarily about how protection of family ownership can be achieved from a legal point of view and discusses the reasons to enforce these legal relationships in the future for second, third, fourth etc. generations of family owners.     

所有权概念之思考

本文在反思传统所有权概念立法例及其理论缺陷的基础上 ,深入考察了所有权的内在方面和弹力性 ,认为 ,为全面理解所有权概念及其终极支配性 ,应放弃弹力性的说法 ,并将目光聚焦在“人”身上     

Justice,Fairness, and World Ownership

It is a central tenet of most contemporarytheories of justice that the badly-off have aright to some of the resources of the well-off.In this paper, I take as my starting point twoprinciples of justice, to wit, the principle ofsufficiency, whereby individuals have a rightto the material resources they need in order tolead a decent life, and the principle ofautonomy, whereby once everybody has such alife, individuals should be allowed to pursuetheir conception of the good, and to enjoy thefruits of their labour in pursuit of suchconception. I also endorse the value offairness, whereby the right person orinstitution makes the decision as to whether tobring about justice.I show that justice and fairness can besatisfied only if we all enjoy a combination ofprivate and collective rights over the world.In making that case, I shall argue that the setof ownership rights I advocate differs fromreadily available conceptions of restrictedprivate ownership in two important respects.First, it is such that in some circumstances,two individuals or more can have control rightsover the same property at the same time, not,as is standardly the case in legal systems, bycontracting with one another (through gifts andjoint purchase), but simply on grounds ofjustice. Second, it allows that, if necessary,property-owners be expropriated from theirproperty without compensation.     

An Analysis of the Joint Board or County Model as the Structural Basis for Effective Australian Local Governance

Australian policy‐makers continue to rely on municipal amalgamation as the main engine of structural reform in local government, despite strong evidence that it diminishes participation and representation without improving service efficiency. Several promising, but neglected alternative models of structural reform have been developed, including ad hoc resource sharing models, Regional Organisations of Councils, virtual local government, and agency models. In an encouraging response to the recent policy of enforced council amalgamations in NSW, the Shires Association of NSW (2004) has recently proposed a ‘Joint Board model’ of local governance and invited comment on this model. This article takes up this challenge and seeks to place the Joint Board model in conceptual context and evaluate its characteristics and simulated cost savings.