国产黄在线观看免费观看软件,欧美日韩在线一区,AV无码久久不卡,99热精品免费观看全部,wwwxxxx日本,国产91香蕉久久久久久,亚洲国产精品日韩色

【編者按】《亞洲法與社會(huì)雜志》（Asian Journal of Law and Society）是由上海交通大學(xué)中國(guó)法與社會(huì)研究院（CISLS）及其前身法社會(huì)學(xué)研究中心（LSC）為凱原法學(xué)院與劍橋

大學(xué)出版社合作出版的全英文學(xué)術(shù)期刊。目前訂購(gòu)數(shù)超過8500戶，其中超過6000是機(jī)構(gòu)訂戶。僅在劍橋出版社的期刊平臺(tái)，僅在2018年，這份新興期刊的全文下載數(shù)就達(dá)到10000

次以上。據(jù)最近獲得的權(quán)威信息，本刊在SCOPUS引文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)排行榜已經(jīng)上升到第二方陣，也已經(jīng)被納入ESCI (Emerging Scholars Citation Index)引文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)，并有望在2021年左右

達(dá)到SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) 數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)的收錄標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

本期集中推送雜志第6卷第1期（2019年5月）的目錄，以方便讀者查閱和引用，也可方便研究者了解本刊錄用稿件的方針和特色。歡迎大家積極參與全英文學(xué)術(shù)期刊Asian Journal

of Law and Society的建設(shè)，在這個(gè)平臺(tái)上構(gòu)筑一個(gè)跨學(xué)科、跨國(guó)界的知識(shí)共同體！

摘要：Existing scholarship of China’s legal institutions has primarily focused on individual institutions, such as the court, the police, or the legal profession. This article proposes a

relational approach to the study of political-legal institutions in China. To understand the order and exercise of power by various political-legal institutions, the relational approach

emphasizes the spatial positions of actors or institutions (the police, courts, lawyers, etc.) within the broader political-legal system and their mutual interactions. We suggest that

the changing ideas of the Chinese leadership about the role of law as an instrument of governance have shaped the relations between various legal and political institutions.

The interactions of these political-legal institutions (e.g. the “iron triangle” of the police, the court and the procuracy) further reveal the dynamics of power relations at work.

現(xiàn)有的關(guān)于中國(guó)法律制度的學(xué)術(shù)研究主要集中在個(gè)別制度上，如法院、公安或者法律職業(yè)。本文提出了一種研究政治法律制度的關(guān)系方法。為理解各項(xiàng)政治法律制度的權(quán)力秩序和

行使情況，關(guān)系方法強(qiáng)調(diào)行為者或機(jī)構(gòu)（公安、法院、律師等）在更廣泛的政治法律制度體系中的空間位置及其相互作用。我們認(rèn)為，中國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人關(guān)于法律作為一種治理工具的觀

念的轉(zhuǎn)變，塑造了各種法律和政治機(jī)構(gòu)之間的關(guān)系。這些政治法律機(jī)構(gòu)（如公安、法院和檢察院的“鐵三角”）的互動(dòng)進(jìn)一步揭示了權(quán)力關(guān)系的動(dòng)態(tài)實(shí)踐。

摘要：This article provides an analytical account of how politics and law in China are organically integrated in the institutional architecture of courts as designed by the Chinese

Communist Party (“the Party”). This design allows the Party to retain its supreme authority in the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the law through its institutional

control over courts. At the same time, the Party can, under this design, also afford to grant an autonomous sphere where courts can perform their adjudicative functions with

minimal interference from the Party, as long as the Party is assured of full authority to determine the scope of the “autonomous-zone,” to impose rules on it, and to revoke it

when necessary. Consequently, courts assume a double character: a pliant political agent on the one hand and a legal institution of its own agency on the other.

本文對(duì)于在中國(guó)，政治和法律如何在中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨（“黨”）設(shè)計(jì)的法院制度結(jié)構(gòu)中有機(jī)地結(jié)合在一起，提供了分析性說明。這種設(shè)計(jì)使黨能夠通過對(duì)法院的制度控制，在法律的解釋

、適用和執(zhí)行方面保留最高權(quán)力。同時(shí)，在這種設(shè)計(jì)之下，只要黨能保證充分的權(quán)力確定“自治區(qū)”的范圍，以及給法院制定規(guī)定并在必要情況下撤銷“自治區(qū)”，黨也可以賦予法院

一定自治范圍，使法院在不受黨干預(yù)的情況下履行審判職能。因此，法院具有雙重特性：一方面是順從的政治代理人，另一方面是具有能動(dòng)性質(zhì)的法律機(jī)構(gòu)。

摘要：In recent years, the Chinese Communist Party has declared that its governance must dominate over all aspects of law-making and enforcement, declaring that its leadership

must be implemented across the entire process of governing the country in accordance with the law. Contemporaneous to this new way of thinking about the law-Party nexus is a

propaganda push to integrate moral values into the law. This paper is about moralizing governance in the Xi Jinping era. It explores the ideology behind the promotion of this

morals–law integration, focusing on the Socialist Core Values in the legal realm under the current Xi Jinping administration. We do so from two interrelated perspectives. The

first examines the relationship between law and morality. Here, we argue that the Party’s calls for a law–morality amalgam can be understood as a form of “pan-moralism.” The

second looks at the supremacy of Party rule, extending the theory of the “Leviathan” proposed by Thomas Hobbes to take into account the Party’s morality push. This

two-pronged argument enables us to assert that the Xi Jinping administration is creating a “virtuous Leviathan.”

近年來，中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨宣布黨必須領(lǐng)導(dǎo)立法和執(zhí)法的各個(gè)方面，并把黨的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)貫徹到全面依法治國(guó)的全過程。與這種新的法律-政黨關(guān)系思考方式同時(shí)進(jìn)行的是一項(xiàng)將道德價(jià)值觀納入

法律的宣傳活動(dòng)。本文旨在探討習(xí)近平時(shí)代的治理道德化問題。它著眼于當(dāng)前習(xí)近平執(zhí)政時(shí)期法律領(lǐng)域的社會(huì)主義核心價(jià)值觀，考察了促進(jìn)這種道德與法律融合的背后的意識(shí)形態(tài)

。本文從兩個(gè)相互關(guān)聯(lián)的角度展開。第一部分研究了法律與道德之間的關(guān)系，認(rèn)為黨對(duì)法律道德的呼吁可以被理解為“泛道德主義”。第二部分著眼于黨的統(tǒng)治至上原則，通過拓展托

馬斯·霍布斯提出的“利維坦”理論，來解釋黨的道德建設(shè)。因此，我們認(rèn)為習(xí)近平政府正在創(chuàng)造 “道德的利維坦”。

摘要：This article describes and critiques the judicial reasoning of Indonesia’s Supreme Court, through the lens of the Court’s reviews of subnational laws during 2011–17. The

resulting picture is a negative one. Most of the Court’s decisions were critically flawed, with either very little or no reasoning, and inconsistencies with past decisions. Worse,

the Court appears keen to avoid hearing important cases that raise difficult political issues, even though the law governing those issues is clear and easy to apply. These

inadequacies are perpetuated by genuine uncertainty about the precise jurisdiction of the Court in judicial review cases. However, the Court has not sought to resolve this

uncertainty. Indeed, these decisions appear to reflect a court paying little regard to judicial transparency and accountability, and unwilling or unable to act as an effective

check on government power.

本文通過印度尼西亞最高法院對(duì)2011-2017年度地方法律的審查來描述和批判該法院的司法推理，得到的結(jié)果不盡人意。法院的大多數(shù)判決都存在嚴(yán)重缺陷，很少或根本沒有推

理，而且與過去的判決不一致。更糟糕的是，法院似乎在盡力避免審理可能引發(fā)棘手政治問題的重要案件，即使有關(guān)這些問題的法律明確易行。由于法院在司法復(fù)審案件中管轄

權(quán)的不確定性，這些不足長(zhǎng)期存在。但是，法院并未試圖解決這種不確定性。實(shí)際上，這些判決似乎反映出法院很少考慮司法透明和司法問責(zé)，并且不愿或不能對(duì)政府權(quán)力實(shí)行有效審查。

摘要：In order to portray the true extent of judicial independence in China’s judicial practices, this article first clarifies the contested meanings of “judicial independence” within

Chinese judicial circles and provides a detailed literature review of the main school of thoughts on the extent of judicial independence in China. In contrast to the existing

literature—most of which sees judicial independence in China as stagnant—this thesis suggests employing the strategic interaction approach to study the development of

impartial adjudication in China and argues that the extent of adjudicative independence is evolving with the amount of judicial discretion afforded by the Chinese Communist

Party (CCP) to judges.

為了描述司法獨(dú)立在中國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中的真實(shí)程度，本文首先闡明了中國(guó)司法界對(duì)“司法獨(dú)立”這一爭(zhēng)議概念的理解，并提供了關(guān)于中國(guó)司法獨(dú)立程度主要思想流派的詳細(xì)文獻(xiàn)綜

述。與現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)相反（大多數(shù)文獻(xiàn)認(rèn)為司法獨(dú)立在中國(guó)處于停滯狀態(tài)），本論文建議采用戰(zhàn)略互動(dòng)方法（strategic interaction approach）來研究中國(guó)公正審判的發(fā)展，并認(rèn)為

司法獨(dú)立的程度隨著中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨賦予法官的自由裁量權(quán)的變化而變化。

摘要：The adoption of weak remedies, such as declarations or recommendations by the Bangladesh Supreme Court in litigations on state-induced forced slum evictions,

significantly contributes to the tardy implementation of court orders. In this context, there is a growing global consensus on the structural injunction—a remedy that

enables judges to monitor and bring about governmental compliance with judicial orders of social rights litigation. The Bangladesh Supreme Court faces several real

and compelling challenges relating to its constitutional authority and institutional capacity that hinder remedial innovation. Through examining relevant constitutional

provisions, judicial approach, and comparative examples, this article argues that the court has the capacity to overcome these constraints. Thus, it advocates judicial

reform in Bangladesh to offset the state’s often arbitrary interference with the basic necessity of housing of the slum dwellers.

孟加拉國(guó)最高法院在關(guān)于國(guó)家強(qiáng)迫遷離的訴訟中采用的軟弱的救濟(jì)措施，例如宣言或建議，極大程度上造成了法院命令的緩慢執(zhí)行。針對(duì)這種情況，關(guān)于結(jié)構(gòu)性禁令

（structural injunction）的全球共識(shí)正在日益增長(zhǎng)，這種救濟(jì)措施使法官能夠監(jiān)督并促使政府遵守社會(huì)權(quán)利訴訟中的司法命令。孟加拉國(guó)最高法院在其憲法權(quán)威和機(jī)構(gòu)

權(quán)能方面面臨著一些現(xiàn)實(shí)而嚴(yán)峻的挑戰(zhàn)，這些挑戰(zhàn)阻礙了救濟(jì)方面的創(chuàng)新。通過審查相關(guān)的憲法規(guī)定、司法方法和案例比較，本文認(rèn)為法院具有克服這些限制的能力

。因此，本文主張?jiān)诿霞永瓏?guó)進(jìn)行司法改革，以彌補(bǔ)該國(guó)對(duì)貧民窟居民住房基本必要條件的經(jīng)常性的任意干預(yù)。

摘要：Notwithstanding its defining feature of normative pluralism, the socialist state of Vietnam basically adopts a legal centralist approach to regulation. The judiciary

is arguably the most illustrative of this approach, since it is the main forum where legal centralism encounters normative pluralism. Our research examines the choice

of norms in judicial adjudication in Vietnam to check the effectiveness of its legal centralist approach. It finds that, despite lacking institutional support, judges managed

to apply customary norms at their discretion against the state’s emphasis on top-down legal rules. A legitimacy-based analysis explains this phenomenon. It points out

that judges conceptualized their legitimacy under the influence of both legal and extra-legal rules, thus making it apart from the legality. Judges attempt to bridge

the gap between legitimacy and legality enabled de factor normative pluralism. In looking at the influence of customary norms over judicial adjudication, the article

aims to make both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it enriches the scholarship of normative pluralism by showing how legitimacy-building keeps

normative pluralism effective, irrespective of the dominating legal centralism. Practically, it proffers insightful implications for the ongoing court reforms in Vietnam

based upon the findings.

盡管有著規(guī)范多元化這一典型特征，越南，作為一個(gè)社會(huì)主義國(guó)家，還是基本上遵循法律中心主義進(jìn)行監(jiān)管。這一路徑在司法中得到了最有力的體現(xiàn)，因?yàn)樗痉ㄊ欠?/span>

中心主義邂逅規(guī)范多元主義的主要平臺(tái)。本文研究了越南司法裁判中的規(guī)范選擇，以檢驗(yàn)其法律中心主義路徑的效力。本文發(fā)現(xiàn)，盡管缺乏制度上的支持，法官還是設(shè)

法酌情適用習(xí)慣法，而非國(guó)家注重的自上而下的法律規(guī)則。對(duì)此現(xiàn)象可以進(jìn)行基于正當(dāng)性的分析。本文指出，法官是在法律規(guī)則以及法律之外規(guī)則的共同影響下理解正

當(dāng)性，從而使其與合法律性相區(qū)分。法官試圖彌合正當(dāng)性與合法律性之間的鴻溝，這在事實(shí)上導(dǎo)致了規(guī)范多元主義。本文旨在考察習(xí)慣法對(duì)于司法裁判的影響，從而在

理論和實(shí)踐兩個(gè)層面做出貢獻(xiàn)。就前者而言，本文通過展現(xiàn)盡管法律中心主義占據(jù)著主導(dǎo)地位，但是對(duì)正當(dāng)性的尋求使得規(guī)范多元主義持續(xù)發(fā)生效力，從而豐富了規(guī)范

多元主義的學(xué)術(shù)討論。就后者而言，本文對(duì)越南正在行進(jìn)中的法院改革具有深刻的啟示。

摘要：This article introduces the designs and the potential problems of the new lay judge system in Taiwan. This article first describes the background of the development

of lay participation in Taiwan, and the 2012 Observer Jury System and the 2018 Lay Judge System drafted by the judiciary. The core of this paper is a qualitative study

of four mock trials conducted by four district courts in Taiwan. Through observations and interviews with mock trial lay judges, this article addresses three main problems

of the new system, including professional judges’ domination in deliberations, the comprehensibility of law, and lack of evidence rules. It also provides a discussion of

the possible solutions to the problems observed. This article urges that training sessions should be provided to both lay judges and legal professionals, adjust the discovery

rule, provide guidance on sentencing, and create evidentiary rules.

本文介紹了我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的新型民眾參審制度（Lay Judge System）的設(shè)計(jì)，以及潛在的問題。本文首先介紹了我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民眾參審制度發(fā)展起來的背景，和司法

部門設(shè)計(jì)的2012年的陪審觀察員制度（Observer Jury System）和2018年的民眾參審制度。本文的核心部分是對(duì)于我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)四個(gè)地方法院舉行的四場(chǎng)模擬庭審

進(jìn)行的定性研究。通過對(duì)于模擬庭審的非職業(yè)法官的觀察和訪談，本文探討了該項(xiàng)制度尚存在的三方面主要問題，包括：專業(yè)法官在案件審議中的主導(dǎo)地位、法律

的可理解性，以及證據(jù)規(guī)則的缺失。本文提出了以上這些問題的可能解決路徑：同時(shí)給非職業(yè)法官和法律專業(yè)人士提供培訓(xùn)課程，調(diào)整證據(jù)發(fā)現(xiàn)規(guī)則（the discovery rule）

，提供量刑指導(dǎo)，創(chuàng)制證據(jù)規(guī)則。

• 上一篇：“法與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)”叢書推介
• 下一篇：《亞洲法與社會(huì)雜志》的發(fā)展績(jī)效報(bào)告與約稿啟事