风险最糟糕情景认知模式及行政法制之改革

以行为决策学关于风险认知的两种模式及其相互关系的理论,阐述了政府官员（公众）对风险最糟糕情景的判断过程,从个体情感角度揭示其过度反应或反应不足的原因;运用社会心理学中的易（非易）得性启示及概率忽视的原理,进一步分析了政府官员（公众）过度反应或反应不足的机理。从行政法角度而言,政府对风险的最糟糕情景反应不足或过度反应都是不具有合法性的行政行为。为确保政府科学管理风险最糟糕情景,行政法需要进行制度变革。这些改革措施包括：组建风险最糟糕情景模拟实验室,定期公布模拟结果;建立并更新风险最糟糕情景信息超级数据库,以及确定相应的预警标准;成立超级风险规制机构以及设计更为精致和灵敏的分析性工具。     

风险社会中的决策科学与民主——以重大决策社会稳定风险评估为例的分析

在风险社会,社会管理必须具有更强的风险意识。行政决策既要具备科学根据,也要体现民主价值。以风险评估为代表的专家理性模式,是充实行政决策科学根据的主要渠道;以民主参与为代表的公众参与模式,是体现决策民主的主要渠道。风险评估应当严守科学底线,通过恰当的制度配置,确保科学评估的独立性、公正性、可靠性。公众参与风险规制,则要求实现风险评估程序启动的开放性、评估过程的透明、评估结果的公开和可审查性。     

公共警告与“信息惩罚”之间的正义——“农夫山泉砒霜门事件”折射的法律命题

"农夫山泉砒霜门事件"缘自海口市工商局一则错误的公共警告,伤害了合法商家,造成了社会恐慌,又有损政府的公信力。"砒霜门"并非偶然事件,从法律社会学的角度分析肇生事端的公共警告,可以看到它正是我们这个时代的需求——既能满足风险社会里公众的安全信息需求,又能成为行政机关有效促进法律实施的惩罚(制裁)手段。公共警告像一切权力一样既可能为善又可能为恶,我国相关法制的疏漏造成了"砒霜门"式事件一再发生,需要强化法律治理以实现正义。     

风险认知模式及其行政法制之意蕴

在风险社会背景下，专家风险认知模式和公众风险认知模式在风险本质、判断风险严重程度之因素和评价风险之方法等方面都存在较大分歧。两种认知模式的差异对规制风险的行政措施造成了许多负面影响。应当通过行政法律制度变革来避免这些消极后果，以便在科学和民主、事实和价值之间获得恰当平衡。这些改革措施包括：实行一种多中心的风险信息公开立法模式；制定并发布统一和完整的风险信息标准，定期加以评估和更新，最终形成一个“全国性的风险预警制度”；进行有效的风险沟通，以便培育公众理性；依据各种定性因素对风险的严重程度加以调节；充分发挥国务院办公厅应急工作办事机构在风险教育、沟通和公开方面中的作用。     

论社会稳定风险评估机制的局限性及其建构

社会稳定风险是传统社会控制模式失效而法治秩序尚未建立的产物,在网络时代具有现实性和非现实性、扩散性和累积性的双面特征。我国地方政府目前的社会稳定风险评估机制,其作为一种行政程序存在着评估主体的信息局限性、评估内容的局限性、评估方法与程序作为合法化机制的局限性。为了有效地预防与控制社会稳定风险,应该将重大行政决定的风险评估主体转化为地方人大或其常委会;在风险评估内容的合法性方面,要加强财产征收程序立法;在合理性方面,各种行政决定不应使当事人的生活标准降低;在安全性方面,应进行应急性评估;在风险评估程序方面,应增加网络舆论评估。     

证据的合法性与行政诉讼败诉风险关系辨析

行政诉讼是法律保护公民、法人或者其他组织合法权益不受行政机关侵害的行政救济手段,证据是证明行政行为合法性的关键,证据合法性又是证据不可或缺的条件。诉讼中,因证据缺乏合法性而被审判机关排除又会导致败诉风险,因此确保证据的合法性,是降低行政诉讼风险的关键,行政机关需要从转变执法理念,提高执法人员素质、依法行政、充分利用相关的法律方面确保证据合法性。     

风险社会理论范式下中国“环境冲突”问题及其协同治理

伴随着环境危机的加剧以及环境群体性事件的频发,环境冲突已成为学术界研究的热点。在风险社会治理范式下,我国环境冲突的风险表现为现实风险和潜在风险。其中现实风险包括健康风险、灾害风险以及经济风险,而潜在风险表现为由环境冲突中的不确定因素所引发的政治、法律以及国家安全的影响和后果。而在当前,我国环境冲突的社会风险呈现出从可能性向现实性转变的态势,因而必须在风险理论的指导下,运用多元主体共同参与公共事务的协同治理模式,通过推进行政改革、构建公众参与机制以及完善法律制度等手段,发挥政府的主导作用和公众的主体作用,提升并保障协同治理的实效与健康运行。     

缔约资格排除类信用惩戒的法治化路径

当前主流观点认为行政协议缔约资格排除类社会信用惩戒属于行政处罚,具有合法性问题,因此需要纳入行政处罚体系来实现其合法化。这一观点值得商榷。基于财产权的分析可发现,缔约资格排除并未侵犯市场主体的财产权,其涉及的是公民以行政协议方式获得公共资源的新型财产权。基于新型财产权框架,以地方性法规、规章及其它规范性文件来规定缔约资格排除的措施具有合法性,且该行为的实质是认定市场主体因缺乏信用要件而无法成就通过行政协议获得公共资源的权利。从确保公共资源物有所值的角度出发,缔约资格排除措施属于基于信用评价而规避交易风险的信用应对措施而非法律惩戒,具备充分的实质合法性。基于禁止不当连接原则下的缔约资格排除行为应当符合物有所值原则。对社会信用制度合法性的理解与法治化建构,应当秉持类型化方法,从厘清各类型信用规制措施的目的及其所依据的行政权、所影响的公民权利的类型出发进行完善。     

绿色发展理念下环境群体性事件预防研究

随着我国经济不断发展,环境问题日益增多,环境群体性事件此起彼伏。环境群体性事件,具有自身的特点:多发性、区域性、可预测性。环境群体性事件具有极大的社会危害,表现为降低政府公信力、增加治理成本、影响社会稳定。环境保护方面法律法规的不完善、地方政府行政管理机制的不足、公众参与和利益表达机制的缺乏是环境群体性事件发生的原因,可以通过健全环境保护方面法律法规、完善地方政府行政管理机制、疏通公众参与和利益表达渠道来建立与完善预防机制,从而从根源减少环境群体性事件的发生。     

评说速览

1政府信息公开谁最需要克服恐慌心理在自然灾害、事故灾难、公共卫生事件和社会安全事件等突发事件发生之后,政府如果及时、如实地发布相关信息,会在一定程度上引起相关人群的恐慌,这是一个很难避免的信息传播效应。但是,在现代社会,对于与突发事件有关的信息,公众的理性认知能力、心理承受能力正在不断提高,在突发事件发生后,即便可能出现短暂的恐慌,但人们自我组织、自我救助的能力也在逐渐增强,政府应当充分估计公众的这两种能力,并因势利导与公众合作,对各种突发事件及其他公共事件进行多边治理。相反,认为公众一旦知道真相,就会引起不必要的恐慌,     

Just Cognition: Scientific Research on Bias and Some Implications for Legal Procedure and Decision‐Making

Common law judges have traditionally been concerned about bias and the appearance of bias. Bias is believed to threaten the administration of justice and the legitimacy of legal decision‐making, particularly public confidence in the courts. This article contrasts legal approaches to bias with a range of biases, particularly cognitive biases, familiar to scientists who study human cognition and decision‐making. Research reveals that judges have narrowly conceived the biases that threaten legal decision‐making, insisting that some potential sources of bias are not open to review and that they are peculiarly resistant to bias through legal training and judicial experience. This article explains how, notwithstanding express concern with bias, there has been limited legal engagement with many risks known to actually bias decision‐making. Through examples, and drawing upon scientific research, it questions legal approaches and discusses the implications of more empirically‐based approaches to bias for decision making and institutional legitimacy.     

专家的局限性及其控制——政府决策咨询视角

政府公共事务决策要广泛听取专家的意见和建议,这对决策的科学化、民主化起着重要作用.由于专家也存在着局限性,对此各级政府决策机构必须引起足够的重视.本文试图通过对专家局限性问题分析,探索关于如何克服专家局限性的有效对策,以便为政府公共事务管理决策提供参考.     

Electronic gatekeepers: Locking out the marketplace of ideas

The Hutchins Commission was concerned that the small minority of the people controlling the press as an instrument of mass communication could misuse their gatekeeping power. Due to new communication technologies the abundance of media outlets has increased choices available to the public far beyond anything commission members could have envisioned. This, in turn, has led to the development of a second layer of electronic gatekeepers between information originators and the public. The effect these electronic gatekeepers will have on the evolution of the press will be as great as, if not greater than, that of the human gatekeepers who were the commission's focus. This article suggests there will be an increasing equation of the public interest with what the public is interested in, a reduction in people's knowledge of public affairs and a decrease in the exposure of individuals to new ideas or ideas that contradict their existing beliefs. The article concludes by questioning whether government regulation is capable of addressing these concerns.     

From Programmatic Reform to Social Science Research: The National Tax Association and the Promise and Perils of Disciplinary Encounters

This article uses the history of the National Tax Association (NTA), the leading twentieth‐century organization of tax professionals, to strengthen our empirical understanding of the disciplinary encounter between law and the social sciences. Building on existing sociolegal scholarship, this article explores how the NTA embodied tax law's ambivalent historical interaction with public economics. Since its founding in 1907, the NTA has changed dramatically from an eclectic and catholic organization of tax professionals with a high public profile to an insular, scholarly association of mainly academic public finance economists. Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative historical evidence, we contend that the transformation in the NTA's mission and output can be explained by the increasing professionalization and specialization of tax knowledge, and by the dominant role that public economics has played in shaping that knowledge. This increasing specialization allowed the NTA to secure its position as a bastion of scholarly tax research. But that achievement came at a cost to the organization's broader civic mission. This article is thus a historical account of how two competing professional disciplines—tax law and public economics—have interacted within a particular organizational field, namely the research and analysis of tax law and policy.     

Wrong about Rights: Public Knowledge of Key Areas of Consumer,Housing and Employment Law in England and Wales

Over many decades, processes of juridification have brought about huge growth in legal rights, responsibilities and protections, yet citizens appear to poorly understand this ‘law thick’ world. This impacts citizens’ capacity to ‘name, blame and claim’ in the legal domain at a time of retreat from public funding of civil legal services. This article examines public knowledge of rights in key areas relating to consumer, housing and employment law. Drawing on data from the 2010–2012 English and Welsh Civil and Social Justice Survey, the article uses responses to a series of hypothetical scenarios to explore public knowledge of rights and characteristics associated with knowledge. Our findings highlight a substantial deficit in individuals’ understanding of legal rights and responsibilities – even among those for whom particular rights and responsibilities have specific bearing. We also consider what these findings mean for public legal education and the efficiency, efficacy and legitimacy of the law.     

Assessing a moral panic relating to crime and drugs policy in the Netherlands: Towards a testable theory

Using criteria from recent work by Goode and Ben Yehuda, this article tests the hypothesis that a moral panic relating to (youth) crime has been going on in the Netherlands since 1990. Most of the criteria are met. There is concern about the problem of crime and a consensus on solutions. There are also indications that public disquiet grew out of proportion compared to trends in crime and victimization, and that the panic erupted fairly suddenly. It is not possible to identify a clearer scapegoat than a diffuse image of “the” criminal. It is unclear what caused this panic. It seems unlikely that the panic started as a reaction to public problems, but nor is it possible to state that elites started it or that it was caused by bureaucratic processes at an intermediate level. Several methodological problems connected with the testing of the criteria are discussed. It is recommended that one criterion be added: that of misdirection of reactions to a social problem. It is also recommended that future research should be comparative, either comparing several minor local panics, or comparing panics or non-panics related to equivalent social problems. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The Legitimacy of Judicial Responses to Moral Panic: Perceived vs. Normative Legitimacy

In some instances, the criminal justice system is affected by a moral panic; that is, by an exaggerated social reaction to an assumed threat to moral values. When influenced by moral panic, courts demonize defendants and aggravate punishments. Are such responses legitimate? This article argues that by contrast to legitimate condemnation of criminal conduct, demonizing defendants ought never be legitimate. The legitimacy of aggravating punishment requires distinguishing between the sociological concept of legitimacy (“perceived legitimacy”) and the moral concept (“normative legitimacy”). Aggravation of punishment in response to moral panic might be perceived as legitimate since it expresses public perceptions about the severity of the threat to a social value, even when these perceptions are exaggerated; however, punishments that are proportionate to such a perceived, exaggerated, threat to a social value are unjust and unfair, and therefore are normatively illegitimate. When the panic subsides, courts tend to return to lower levels of punishment. The subsidence of the panic enables one to realize that a gap between perceived and normative legitimacy has been created during the panic. Should and can the gap be bridged retroactively in order to gain full legitimacy? One way to bridge the gap is to grant clemency that will reduce the punishment of defendants whose sentences were exaggerated unduly during the panic. The article proposes a more radical mechanism that allows for sentence re-evaluation in cases of moral panic.     

The Incoherence of the Unified Bar Concept: Generalizing from the Wisconsin Case

Many of the unified bars—public bodies to which all lawyers must belong and pay dues in order to practice—have been embroiled in legal and political disputes recently. Focusing on the history of the unified bar in Wisconsin, this article accounts for these disputes in terms of contradictions inherent in the very concept of a unified bar. Across a wide range of issues, the author argues, decision makers have been unsure whether to treat a unified bar as a public agency, a compulsory membership organization, or a private voluntary association, and thus unable to determine when public accountability, the protection of dissident members, or associational autonomy should be the dominant policy in unified bar affairs. The author concludes that disputes over questions of unified bar governance are unlikely to subside and that the unified bars should therefore be terminated in favor of a combination of private voluntary state bar associations and administrative agencies independent of the organized bar.     

Grant's Application: it's time for a new approach to a "public interest" exclusion from patentability

This article reviews the recent IP Australia decision in Grant's Application [2004] APO 11 about an innovation patent for a way of protecting assets against a loss of ownership as a result of a legal liability. The significance of this decision was to expose the tortured reasoning necessary to exclude from patentability an invention that was arguably contrary to the "public interest". The article asserts that the effect of the decision revoking the patent was correct, but that the reasoning points to a need to reconsider the "public interest" limits on patentability. The article then considers the approach that should be adopted in formalising a "public interest" exemption from patentability that is practical and generally applicable.     

再论刑事附带民事案件精神赔偿问题——走出刑事案件精神赔偿的误区

精神损害赔偿在我国理论界及司法界一直是敏感的问题。传统的诉讼观念认为 ,精神赔偿不适用刑事案件损害赔偿请求。然而 ,随着社会的发展 ,公民权利本位法律意识的强化 ,要求刑事侵权给予精神赔偿的呼声越来越高 ,而法律又与社会情势、公众情绪、当代诉讼观念相抵触 ,以致公众难以接受立法者对这一问题的态度 ,其冲突的焦点 ,在于对这一问题的认识及如何统一完善这方面的立法 ,消除认识上的误区