量刑答辩、诉辩交易与刑事诉讼制度的完善

本文从量刑答辩立法上的规定与司法实际中的现状出发,讨论了量刑答辩与诉辩交易的异同,提出了看法。此外,又对量刑答辩的价值扩张所需要的刑事诉讼制度的完善进行了讨论。     

商务谈判中的情感语言

在商务谈判中 ,谈判双方要想达成互利互惠的业务 ,就必须在平等的基础上进行语言交流 ,“以言传情” ,“以情感人” ,使谈判得以保持在友好融洽的氛围进行。但是 ,感情并非谈判的目的 ,谈判人员对此必须有清醒的认识 ,如果感情用事就必定会落入对方的情感陷阱而影响谈判目标的实现     

化解劳资矛盾首先要转变思维方式

本文意在澄清劳资矛盾问题上的思维混乱,提倡运用辩证思维方式看待当前我国劳资关系现状及存在问题,从实际出发,具体、客观地分析劳资矛盾产生的原因,指出用辩证思维方法作指导,制定化解劳资矛盾的政策法规,才有利于劳资矛盾的解决。     

交往行为理论的深层次逻辑——兼论哈贝马斯对物化现象的消解

哈贝马斯的交往行为理论是工具理性批判的继续,交往理性和工具理性面对同样的主题：物化。第一代法兰克福学派为克服卢卡奇物化理论的困难,将物化理论发展为工具理性批判,但是工具理性自身也存在逻辑悖论。所以在语言学转向的背景下,哈贝马斯的交往行为理论实现从工具理性转向交往理性的转向,并在交往行为理论的框架内研究系统和生活世界的关系。在其理论框架内,物化也就意味着生活世界的殖民化,并通过建构基于交往行为理论之上的商谈伦理对其进行解决。     

澳大利亚医保目录的药品准入谈判对我国的启示

该研究对澳大利亚医保目录的药品准入谈判的谈判主体、谈判过程、谈判结果进行详细介绍,并总结对我国的启示作用,即保持谈判主体的独立性;注重药物经济学评价和积极探索新型的价格谈判方法。     

1939年3月—8月世界外交舞台透视

1939年 3月——— 8月世界外交舞台上有三对谈判 :英法苏谈判、英德谈判、德苏谈判。它们构成一个三角平衡关系。斯大林的大国倾向、张伯伦的绥靖政策、英苏之间的猜疑、希特勒的外交天才 ,最终使德苏谈判成功 ,希特勒完成了二战前的外交准备     

协商民主与政党制度

协商民主是20世纪后期以来西方社会兴起的一种新型民主理论,尽管目前其实际运行的经验还不是很多,但是已经引起了众多中外学者的关注。协商民主关怀的核心是立法和决策达成的形式,而政党是现代民主政治的重要基础,是立法和决策形成的重要参与者。因此,协商民主情境下必然涉及政党和政党制度,现有的政党制度虽然不能按照协商民主的路径行进,但是无论是竞争性还是非竞争性政党制度,都能够从协商民主的理念中获得知识资源而不断得到补充和完善。     

伍廷芳与中美专利交涉

1902～1903年的中美商约谈判过程中,伍廷芳与张之洞的观点有很大不同.他站在健全中国法制的基础上,力主中国有条件地接受专利互保一款,运用以下谈判技巧:争取管理权,延缓条约执行日期,缩小保护客体,易"专利"为"专制",降低保护层次,规范外国人注册程序等,对条款内容做了有利于中国的修改与补充.另外,他利用自己的特殊身份和语言优势,在交涉中起到了很好的桥梁作用.     

Merging Family and Firm: An Integrated Systems Approach to Process and Change

The blurring of family and business in family businesses can create tremendous stress for all family members. Scholars have been unsuccessful in applying task-oriented, business-based models to a business in which the boundaries between task and family blur and overlap. This article integrates current research and theory related to family interaction, organizational dynamics, and family businesses to present a conceptual framework that details the complex inner workings of family businesses and helps guide those who study and work with them.     

Fair Processes for Societal Decisions Involving Distributional Inequalities

We investigate fair processes for societal decisions that involve different risks and benefits to different groups. A fair decision-making process is particularly important for decisions such as siting hazardous facilities. We experimentally evaluate the impact of alternative decision processes on the final choice of hypothetical facility sites and the resulting benefit and risk distribution to groups. The experimental task required choice among many alternative sites for a hazardous facility. Sites differ by the distribution of risks and benefits to each of two communities, and in the attractiveness of the sites to each community. Subjects were divided into three groups: individuals who judged the best site in the role of arbitrators, pairs of negotiators with one person representing each of the two communities, and trios who identified the best site in the role of a siting jury. We found the choices of negotiating and siting jury groups tended to emphasize the communities'preferences compared to the individual arbitrators who tended to focus on balancing the distribution of risks and benefits. Also, undergraduate psychology students, regardless of the dispute resolution mechanism, tended to display more emphasis on the risks and benefits, and graduate business students tended to focus more on the communities'preferences.