A Procedural Evaluation of an Analytic-Deliberative Process: The Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment

The U.S. Department of Energy's Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment (CRCIA) was an ambitious attempt to direct its cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation toward the most significant risks to the Columbia River resulting from past plutonium production. DOE's approach was uncommonly open, including tribal, regulatory agency, and other Hanford interest group representatives on the board that was to develop the assessment approach. The CRCIA process had attributes of the "analytic-deliberative" process for risk assessment recommended by the National Research Council. Nevertheless, differences between the DOE and other participants over what was meant by the term "comprehensive" in the group's charge, coupled with differing perceptions of the likely effectiveness of remediation efforts in reducing risks, were never resolved. The CRCIA effort became increasingly fragmented and the role its products were to play in influencing future clean-up decisions increasingly ambiguous. A procedural evaluation of the CRCIA process, based on Thomas Webler's procedural normative model of public participation, reveals numerous instances in which theoretical-normative discourse disconnects occurred. These had negative implications for both the basic procedural dimensions of Webler's model-fairness and competence. Tribal and other interest group representatives lacked the technical resources necessary to make or challenge what philosopher Jurgens Habermas terms cognitive validity claims, while DOE and its contractors did not challenge normative claims made by tribal representatives. The results are cautionary for implementation of the analytic-deliberative process. They highlight the importance of bringing rigor to the evaluation of the quality of the deliberation component of risk characterization via the analytic-deliberative process, as well as to the analytic component.     

Military procurement as rational myth: Notes on the social construction of weapons proliferation

This paper outlines four theoretical approaches to the sociology of weapons proliferation: strategic-functional theories, factional theories, geopolitical theories, and institutional theories. Although rarely formulated explicitly, the first three approaches are implicit in the existing literature on proliferation. All three see proliferation as the result of rational decision making, although they differ as to the locus of these decisions, with strategic-functional theories focusing on the nation-state, factional theories on subnational interests, and geopolitical theories on global superpowers. In contrast, the institutional approach disputes the rationality of procurement, arguing instead that weapons purchases are structured and driven by institutionalized normative structures that link advanced weaponry with modernization and sovereignty. The policy implications of this perspective are discussed, and parallels to recent developments in organizational theory are highlighted.     

马克思世界历史理论与现代文明发展新道路

马克思世界历史理论的内在意义在全球化条件下显得十分重要而弥足珍贵。它为我们揭示世界历史的形成发展以及西方资本主义工业文明与东方社会主义文明、世界历史的整合与中国特色社会主义文明发展道路之间的内在逻辑关系,提供了强大的理论支持。     

辛亥革命是中国新民主主义革命胜利的奠基石

辛亥革命是中国近代史上一次伟大的、较完全意义上的资产阶级民主革命运动。它推翻清政府之统治和结束了中国两千多年的封建帝制,并打击帝国主义在华之侵略势力,为以后新民主主义革命历史的发展开辟了道路;其失败的经验教训还给中共新民主主义革命理论之形成,提供了有益的借鉴和思想材料。     

论对警察人身安全的保护

在现实中,警察人身安全频遭侵害。造成上述现象的原因,既有认识层面上的,又有法律层面上的,还有操作层面上的。加强对警察人身安全的保护,既要调整观念,也要加强立法,并从增强财力和警力、加强警察素质训练等方面入手。     

如何让马克思主义在中国牢牢扎根

马克思主义作为科学，既具有鲜明的批判精神又蕴含着丰富的建设性原则，所以既能够成为指导革命的强大理论武器，又能够成为指导现代化建设的行动指南。党的二十大报告提出“让马克思主义在中国牢牢扎根”这一重大时代课题。进入新时代踏上新征程，让马克思主义在中国牢牢扎根，既需要把马克思主义转化为看家本领，更加科学地指导经济社会发展，又需要把这一科学理论融入人们的实际工作和日常生活中，让马克思主义成为一种生活方式。     

“人工智能黑客”的法律规制

从历史上看，"黑客"迭代到"人工智能黑客"，是伴随着计算机、互联网、大数据和人工智能等科学技术迅猛发展而产生的。现如今的"人工智能黑客"是人机交互体，既非人也非物，介于两者之间，它可以模仿人类、干扰人类认知，为达到设计者或决策者的目的对网络系统漏洞进行智能化侵入和破坏。"人工智能黑客"区别于传统"黑客"的主要特征在于其可以依靠智能算法自主学习、寻找网络系统代码漏洞和加强分布式攻击。部分学者将人工智能技术划分为弱人工智能、强人工智能、超人工智能三个阶段，甚至有学者建议从伦理上赋予强人工智能法律主体地位，赋权理由是强人工智能算法具有独立的"机器意思"表示能力，与人类有情感的联结。显然，这种赋权方式不仅违背"人本主义"原则的主体创新，而且现行法律主体包括自然人、法人、非法人组织，"人工智能黑客"不属于任何一类主体，突兀地将法律主体的理性意思表示与人工智能算法指令的"机器意思"相等同，容易形成"人工智能黑客"行为在算法正义法律评价和民事法律行为构造上的困境，干扰我们对"人工智能黑客"本质的判断。溯本清源，应当以法律上权利义务构造标准去判断"人工智能黑客"的法律属性。"人工智能黑客"本质上是自然人主体通过人工智能算法技术，利用网络媒介进行网络侵权或犯罪的行为。"人工智能黑客"的核心是通过计算机代码设置、大数据运算与机器自动化判断进行决策的一套机制。"人工智能黑客"在责任承担上不是适格的法律主体，只具有特殊的"人格性工具"法律属性。"人工智能黑客"的智能化攻击外在表现为算法程序的自动执行，但程序的设计和算法运行归属于现实经济生活中的人，也完全符合法律上间接侵权的调整范畴。对于"人工智能黑客"的侵权或犯罪行为，应当通过揭开"人工智能黑客"的"面纱"，找到其背后隐藏的可规制法律主客体，利用"穿透"方式对"人工智能黑客"的非法行为进行伦理、技术和法律三个维度的有效规制。