孔子诞辰作教师节存多项法治障碍/邓清波

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-06-30 20:56:25   浏览:9291   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载
  延续了29年的9月10日“教师节”,今后可能要改日期了。国务院法制办昨日公布《教育法律一揽子修订草案(征求意见稿)》,对教育法、高等教育法、教师法和民办教育促进法四部法律相关条款进行修订。意见稿中拟规定,每年9月28日为教师节(9月6日《北京晨报》)。

  从法治的角度来看,把教师节从9月10日调整到9月28日,需要解决以下几个方面的难题。

  首先,避免法律规定产生歧义。有关人士建议把教师节定在9月28日,是与孔子有关,因为许多人认为这天是孔子的诞辰。2004年,时任全国政协委员李汉秋就倡导修改教师节时间,其明确表示,“建议以孔子诞辰作为教师节日期”。然而要看到,孔子作为历史人物,他的定位并非仅仅是教育家,还有思想家、政治家、儒家思想创始人等多重身份。从今天来看,孔子的思想学说有很多精华,但并不能完全代表中国多元文化传统的全貌,也绝不能代表今后中国文化的发展方向。在法律上选择孔子诞辰定位教师节,本意是为了尊师重教,客观上却会给人以国家特别尊崇孔子以及他所代表的儒家文化、思想等方面的感观,以“尊师”为名行“尊孔”之实,这就产生了错位,因而是必须努力避免的。

  其次,要力求法律的真实准确性。法律必须实事求是,它所确立的事物必须是真实的、准确的,这样才能做到权威、客观、公正。然而,对于孔子的诞辰,本身是有争议的。虽然多数学者推测是公元前551年的9月28日,但也有学者认为,此说其实缺乏可靠依据,根据记载,孔子的诞辰日应为公历公元前552年10月9日。既然孔子诞辰本身还存在争议,不能确保无误,那么,法律就不应该贸然为其背书。把9月28日作为孔子诞辰而选定为教师节,实质上是在法律上对孔子诞辰作出了认定,这会不会干扰学术自由,会不会误导真相,是需要谨慎考量的。

  再次,还要符合法律的统一性。选定9月28日作为教师节可能会带来法律精神不统一的问题。比如,现行教育法规定,“教育应当继承和弘扬中华民族优秀的历史文化传统,吸收人类文明发展的一切优秀成果。”也就是说,教育对文化实际上应有两方面的态度,一是传承弘扬本民族的文化,二是积极吸收借鉴全人类的文化。主张把孔子诞辰定为教师节的理由,是认为教师节应当是很有文化内涵的节日,应延续源远流长的历史传统。但是,如果只是强调延续本民族的历史传统,却忽略了“吸收人类文明发展的一切优秀成果”这一开放精神,显然没有完整地贯彻教育法的立法原意。当然,教育法这次也可能要修订,但包容、开放以及积极吸收外国先进文明的精神无论如何是不能抛弃的。

  又次,法律修改还应有一定的前瞻性。据相关资料介绍,1994年初,联合国教科文组织宣布从是年起,每年10月13日为“国际教师节”,目的是为了向全世界的所有教师表达国际社会的崇敬之情。中国作为联合国会员国,如果将来承认联合国上述规定,那么,定9月28日为教师节就可能会遇到短时期内出现两个教师节的尴尬。

  最后,制定法律应充分考虑现实可行性。主张者认为,在实际操作中,9月10日由于适逢开学伊始,教师通常忙碌于开学的各项工作,很难有时间和心情享受节日,而改到月底,能与中秋国庆假期有一个衔接,对教师而言会更加方便。然而,换个角度看,由于中秋国庆假期本身可供休息并且有浓厚的庆祝氛围,教师节与之过于接近就失去了让教师休息的意义,冲淡了节日主题,甚至会重蹈过去把教师节与劳动节合并的覆辙。这样,立法的实践效益就会大打折扣。

  个人认为,9月10日定为教师节已经实行了29年,在实践中并没有遇到太大的障碍,不宜耗费立法资源轻易改动。如果因为教师节与开学太近而产生一些问题,确实需要改动,那么,可以考虑与国际接轨,定为每年10月13日,是为国庆节后的第一个重要节日,“师庆”与“国庆”衔接,更有利于延续我国过去把“天地国亲师”并列的尊师重教传统,符合有关人士继承和弘扬中华民族优秀历史文化传统的本意,同时也能体现开放精神和世界眼光,更有利于中华文化发展创新。
下载地址: 点击此处下载
WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism

------An Analysis of the DSU in Positivism



by
Chengwei, Liu




Foreword
This book is a systematically selected compilation of Reports issued by various panels and the standing Appellate Body, then adopted by the DSB under the WTO jurisdiction by the end of May 2002, in category of subjects such as causes of action, initiation of panel proceedings, function of panels, rules of evidence and special rules governing anti-dumping disputes, etc., which are in most cases ruled as “preliminary issues” or “procedural objections”. However, this book is not intended to be exhaustive. It deals only with issues in dispute settlement proceedings under the WTO jurisprudence that the author considers the more important, where such rules are mainly concerned as Art. XXIII of the GATT 1994; Arts. 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 21.5, 23, 26 of the DSU; Arts. 17.4, 17.5, 17.6 of the AD Agreement and Arts. 31, 32 of the Vienna Convention and so on.
Moreover, this book is intended to be descriptive and positive rather than prescriptive and theoretical. Most of the author’s analysis benefits much from the precise and logically organized reports by panels and the Appellate Body, administered by the DSB under the WTO jurisdiction. It must be made clear that these reports do not constitute binding “subsequent practice” referred to in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, nor do they operate as stare decisis, panels and the Appellate Body are therefore not bound by past reports. Nevertheless, it does be the case demonstrated by the DSB practice that, relevant reasoning in a particular case has been cited or followed frequently by another panel or confirmed by the Appellate Body in subsequent cases.
As ruled by the Appellate Body in Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (DS44), “[a]dopted panel reports are an important part of the GATT acquis. They are often considered by subsequent panels. They create legitimate expectations among WTO Members, and, therefore, should be taken into account where they are relevant to any dispute”. Furthermore, a panel could nevertheless find useful guidance in the reasoning of an unadopted panel report when it considers relevant. More importantly, as stated in the letter with which the Appellate Body conveyed in the February of 1996 its Working Procedures for Appellate Review to the DSB for information, “… it is also important to ensure consistency and coherence in our decision-making, which is to the advantage of every WTO Member and the overall multilateral trading system we all share”.
There is no doubt that, in line with the pragmatic evolution of the GATT dispute settlement system, the progressive clarification of a number of issues that are not precisely regulated in the DSU and the further development of the WTO dispute settlement procedures, will gradually evolve after having been tested and progressively clarified and improved in concrete dispute settlement cases.
Considering all of this, the author complete this book with serious-minded exploring examination and great diligence, bearing in mind that it is therefore practical and of great significance for WTO Members to be informed of the valuable rulings in those reports issued by panels and the Appellate Body in particular cases.

List of Abbreviations

ATC Agreement on Textile and Clothing
BISD Basic Instruments and Selected Documents (published by GATT)
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes
DSB Dispute Settlement Body
EC The European Communities
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
IMF International Monetary Fund
PGE Permanent Group of Experts (in the SCM Agreement)
SCM Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
SG Agreement on Safeguards
SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
TBT Technical Barriers to Trade
TMB Textiles Monitoring Body
TRIMS Trade-related Investment Measures
TRIPS Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
TSB Textiles Surveillance Body
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
WTO World Trade Organization
Table of Contents

Chapter I Trend towards “Judicialization”:
A Rule-oriented Dispute Settlement System
Chapter II Causes of Action before the DSB:
Art. XXIII of the GATT 1994
Section One Right to Pursue a Proceeding under the WTO
I The Concept of Nullification or Impairment
II The Standing Issue before the DSB

最高人民法院民事审判庭关于杜月丑房屋申诉案处理问题的复函

最高人民法院民事审判庭


最高人民法院民事审判庭关于杜月丑房屋申诉案处理问题的复函

1990年11月7日,最高法院民事审判庭

山西省高级人民法院:
你院(1990)晋法民报字第5号《关于杜月丑房屋申诉案处理问题的请示报告》收悉。经研究,现答复如下:
此案发生在1955年改造落后村运动中,将讼争房收归原主是当时工作组决定的,属于落实政策的问题。原审法院是依据县委交办意见受理此案并作出判决的。现在省人大和各级党政部门既然一致认为还是按落实政策问题处理更有利于稳定,你院则不必支持原来的意见,可在讲明情况后,按照审判监督程序撤销一、二审判决,由政府部门去处理,并请省人大和其他有关部门做好当事人的息诉工作。
以上意见,供参考。