中共第三代领导集体对"一国两制"方针的继承与发展

以江泽民为核心的中共第三代领导集体,继承和发展了党的"一国两制"方针,根据两岸形势的变化,与时俱进地制定了一系列的对台方针、政策和措施:坚持一个中国原则,坚决反对分裂,反对"台独"活动,维护祖国统一;坚持通过两岸对话和谈判来实现祖国的和平统一;高度重视对台湾人民的工作,贯彻"更寄希望于台湾人民"的方针;积极推动两岸的经贸交流与合作;不承诺放弃使用武力,积极做好军事斗争准备,有力地推进了祖国统一的历史进程.     

借鉴，还是抄袭——评《对列宁一国建成社会主义思想及其意义的探讨》

陈立旭的《对列宁一国建成社会主义思想及其意义的探讨》一,主要内容抄自李心华的《列宁“一国建成”思想新论》稿。陈立旭认为自己的行为是借鉴。到底是借鉴,还是抄袭?经过详细比较证明,陈立旭的《探讨》是一篇道地的抄袭之作。抄袭就是抄袭,抄袭和借鉴是有区别的。     

邓小平与中英香港问题的谈判

在香港回归历史的过程中,邓小平提出了用“一国两制”的方针解决香港问题。并坚持从香港的实际出发,实事求是,亲自领导了中英关于香港问题的谈判,不仅为香港胜利回归祖国打下了坚实的基础,而且也为当今世界提供了一个用和平方式谈判解决国与国争端的成功范例。     

江泽民与香港回归

20世纪90年代以后,以江泽民为核心的中共第三代领导集体和以胡锦涛为总书记的中共新的领导集体,在继承和发展邓小平"一国两制、和平统一"的"政治交代"和"思想遗产"的基础上,在指导香港回归前的"平稳过渡"和"顺利交接"、香港回归后的"保持长期稳定和繁荣"工作的过程中,不断进行新的理论创新和实践创新,使"一国两制"的"香港模式"在探索中逐步成型、成熟,使"香港明天更好"的前景现实性地呈现.     

包世臣与嘉道年间的学风转变

包世臣是嘉道年间学风转变的代表人物之一.这主要表现在以下三个方面:第一,是他的经世思想形成早.早在1800年前后包世臣的经世思想即已形成并趋于成熟,其标志是1801年他<说储>上下二篇的成书.这至少要早于龚自珍和魏源的经世思想的形成20年左右.第二,是他的经世思想具有代表性.就包世臣的经世思想来看,具有两个显著的特征:一是批判旧学,摆脱汉学、宋学的束缚;二是强调学以致用,重视社会实践.这两个特征也正是嘉道时期学风转变的显著标志.第三,是他的经世思想影响较大.包世臣的经世思想主要通过三条途径发生影响:一是入幕;二是交友;三是著述.包世臣对于嘉道时期学风的转变具有承上启下的作用.所谓"承上",是继承了"清初诸老"的"实用之学".所谓"启下",是开启了嘉道时期的"经世之学".     

发达国家技术移民政策及其影响——以美国和加拿大为例

在经济全球化背景下,国际人口迁移呈现出明显的特点。其特点之一就是技术移民剧增成为全球化的一个突出现象。技术移民之所以在全球备受青睐,与发达国家制定技术移民政策有密切的关系,美国和加拿大是成功吸引技术移民的国家,两国之所以制定技术移民政策,是为了应对信息革命带来的全球性人才争夺战。同时美、加技术移民政策产生了双重影响。为了遏制人才外流,亚洲国家应采取积极的措施,制定人才强国战略,吸引有用人才尤其是技术人才,在国际人才竞争中取得主动,赢得未来。     

德意志之名:德国国名的起源与国号的演变

现代德语中,德国国名"Deutschland"一词起源于中世纪早期日耳曼民族语言的名称"theodiscus""diutisk"等词,具有语言、民族、地理和政治等多个层面的含义。国号中通常会包含国名的地理或民族因素,但长期以来,德国特殊的政治体制和政治形态导致中世纪时期大部分德国国号与自身的地理和民族名称相分离。直到1871年,"德意志"(Deutsch)才成为德国国号的主要部分; 1949年,"德国"(Deutschland)才成为国号的组成部分。德国的国号根据历代统治者政治理念的改变而不断变化。通过考察德国国名的起源与国号的演变,可以更为深刻地理解德国历史的特殊性和延续性。     

Studying marriage migration to Europe from below: informal practices of government,border struggles and multiple entanglements

The growing importance of marriage as a migration strategy has been accompanied by a problematisation and securitization of marriages between binational couples in media and policy discourse. Moreover, marriage migration has received increased scholarly attention. In this article, we propose an analytical framework for the study of marriage migration and its government that permits to transcend three biases and related blind spots that we identify in the existing literature. While this literature offers rich insights into marriage migration and states’ ever more laboured attempts to control and regulate it, this literature is, nevertheless, characterised by an implementation gap bias, a control bias and, finally, a destination country bias. To address these biases, we propose an analytical framework that is inspired by the autonomy of migration approach. We propose to ethnographically study binational couples’ encounters with marriage migration related authorities in countries of destination and citizenship with a particular focus on binational couples’ struggles for visas, resident permits and a right to family life. Illustrated through ethnographic research, we show that this methodology permits to highlight three aspects of marriage migration that have not been sufficiently considered so far. These include the securitization of marriage migration ‘from below’ through informal practices of government on the ‘street-level’, binational couples’ inherently political border struggles and their capacity to negotiate restrictive legislations and bureaucratic hurdles and, finally, what we call the multiple entanglements of binational couples in the border and citizenship regimes of two or more nation-state orders.     

‘Attaque and Break Through a Phalanx of Corruption . . . the Court Party!’ The Scottish Representative Peers' Election and the Opposition, 1733–5: Three New Division Lists of the House of Lords of 1735*

In the early 1730s, Archibald Campbell, the earl of Ilay, gained a dominant position in Scotland, and Sir Robert Walpole, the prime minister, entrusted him with the distribution of patronage there. Ilay took full advantage of this power, and controlled the votes of the financially weak Scottish peers in the election of 16 representative peers. The excise crisis of 1733–4, however, changed the political scene in Scotland. Although they had been chosen as supporters of the court party, some of the Squadrone Volante members (the duke of Montrose and the marquess of Tweeddale) and two courtiers (the earls of Marchmont and Stair) raised a standard of revolt against Walpole and Ilay. The Scottish opposition co‐operated with the English country party (‘the Patriots’) and such Scottish tories as the duke of Hamilton. In the 1734 peers' election they launched a challenge to the ministry, but the opposition was crushed by a bankrolled election campaign organised by the court party. Although the English and Scottish opposition petitioned in the house of lords to criticize the ‘undue practices’ of Walpole and Ilay at the election, the ministry was backed up by English and Scottish courtiers and bishops, and overwhelmed the opposition. Three new division lists related to the aftermath of the Scottish election shed much light upon the party alignment of the upper House in the middle of the 1730s.