检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:Charles E.MacLean YE Chengfang
机构地区:[1]Metro State University,Saint Paul,USA [2]University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire,Eau Claire,USA [3]Beijing Youth Politics College,Beijing,China
出 处:《US-China Law Review》2023年第4期157-187,共31页美中法律评论(英文版)
摘 要:Legal principles regarding justifiable self-defense in the People’s Republic of China and in the United States paint very different legal landscapes.In China,there is a single,over-arching,national set of self-defense principles largely identically applied and interpreted in all provinces.Evolution of self-defense in China is,as a result,much easier to design and impose with one set of decision-makers monolithically setting the contours of Chinese self-defense from border to border.In the United States,the federalist criminal justice system is characterized by a federal sovereign,50 states,and the District of Columbia.Each of those jurisdictions marches to its own drummer,thereby giving life to individual,local,and provincial problems and preferences within the broad contours compelled by the United States Constitution.The United States self-defense tapestry is described herein as a crazy quilt.This article summarizes legal self-defense principles in each country and derives from those disparate approaches several key lessons from which decision-makers in both countries and elsewhere could benefit.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.7