The Paradox of Terrorism in Civil War

A great deal of violence in civil wars is informed by the logic of terrorism: violence tends to be used by political actors against civilians in order to shape their political behavior. I focus on indiscriminate violence in the context of civil war: this is a type of violence that selects its victims on the basis of their membership in some group and irrespective of their individual actions. Extensive empirical evidence suggests that indiscriminate violence in civil war is informed by the logic of terrorism. I argue that under certain conditions, that tend to be quite common, such violence is counter productive. I specify these conditions and address the following paradox: why do we sometimes observe instances of indiscriminate violence evenunder conditions that make this strategy counterproductive? I review four possible reasons: truncated data, ignorance, cost, and institutional constraints. I argue that indiscriminate violence emerges because it is much cheaper than its main alternative – selective violence. It is more likely under a steep imbalance of power between the competing actors, and where and when resources and information are low; however, most political actors eventually switch to selective violence. Thus, given a balance of power between competing actors, indiscriminate violence is more likely at early rather than late stages of the conflict. Overall, the paper suggests that even extreme forms of violence are used strategically.     

公务员正常高值血压的流行现状及危险因素分析

对吉林省516名公务员的血压及心血管疾病危险因素进行描述性分析,用二分类Logistic回归法筛选危险因素。公务员正常高值血压现患率为34．9％。正常高值血压人群体重指数、腰围、空腹血糖、总胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇、甘油三酯、血清肌酐、血尿酸、心一踝血管指数水平以及代谢综合征患病率均高于正常血压组低于高血压组,高密度...     

Democracy,Deliberation and Disobedience

This paper develops a theory of civil disobedience informed by a deliberative conception of democracy. In particular, it explores the justification of illegal, public and political acts of protest in constitutional deliberative democracies. Civil disobedience becomes justifiable when processes of public deliberation fail to respect the principles of a deliberative democracy in the following three ways: when deliberation is insufficiently inclusive; when it is manipulated by powerful participants; and when it is insufficiently informed. As a contribution to ongoing processes of public deliberation, civil disobedience should be carried out in a way that respects the principles of deliberative democracy, which entails a commitment to persuasive, non-violent forms of protest.Civil disobedience is understood in this paper as public, illegal and political protest carried out against state laws or policies. Justification here is understood as a moral or political justification -- where civilly disobedient citizens claim that they are morally or politically entitled to disobey law. It does not imply legal justification.John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972); Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (London: Harvard University Press, 1985).     

Introduction: Law and Disobedience

This essay considers some major questions raised by civil and other forms of conscientious disobedience. What distinguishes that form of dissent? Can we recognise the legitimacy of a political system yet defy its laws? Is disobeying a democratic decision especially or entirely unacceptable, or can disobedience be an instrument of democracy? If a regime recognises rights, how should we regard disobedience that appeals to those rights in challenging the regime’s laws? How should reasons for obedience figure in our thinking about justified disobedience? The essay locates the contributions that make up this special issue of Res Publica within these debates about disobedience. It questions whether any general theory of justified disobedience can command agreement: the conditions that give rise to conscientious disobedience -- conflicting values and judgements -- seem to preclude consensus on when its use is justified.     

医疗过失的法律责任

引起医疗纠纷的事实可分为应由医方承担责任的事实和不应由医方承担责任的事实,只有医方符合法律责任的构成要件－即医疗行为的主体是医疗单位、主体有过失或违反义务的行为、有损害后果、而且主体的行为与损害后果之间有因果关系,才需承担法律责任,以消除只有损害后果医方就要承担法律责任和只有鉴定为医疗事故的才承担法律责任等方面的误区。     

Birth Order and Civil Disobedience: A Test of Sulloway's “Born to Rebel” Hypothesis

Abstract

In Born to Rebel, F. Sulloway (1996) argued that, throughout history, laterborns have been more likely than first-borns to challenge the status quo. The authors tested Sulloway's hypothesis among a group of U.S. college students who had participated in civil disobedience as part of a labor dispute. The authors predicted that there would be a higher percentage of later-borns among those who had been arrested than among a group of their friends who had not participated in civil disobedience or among a control group of students drawn from classes at the college. The findings, in fact, revealed a significant relationship between the number of times the students had been arrested and birth order.     

基于心理控制源视角的女公务员婚姻质量研究

目的:研究女公务员心理控制源和婚姻质量的关系。方法:采用《Olson婚姻质量问卷》和《控制圈量表》对551名女公务员进行调查。结果:不同职级的女公务员心理控制源差异显著,其婚姻质量差异不显著;不同年龄的女公务员心理控制源和婚姻质量差异不显著;影响女公务员婚姻满意度的主要因素是性生活、与亲友的关系、子女和婚姻、业余活动、信仰一致性、经济安排、夫妻交流、人际控制。结论:不同职级的女公务员心理控制源差异显著,其婚姻质量差异不显著;影响女公务员婚姻满意感的主要因素是婚际因素和外界因素,个人因素贡献不显著;基于控制源的视角,人际控制对女公务员婚姻满意度贡献显著,个人实力和社会政治控制对其婚姻满意度贡献不显著。