摘要：1 online resource

摘要：34 pages : illustrations (some color), portraits ; 20 cm

摘要：从书：Minguo ji cui. 4, 2, 302 pages ; 27 cm.

摘要：272 p. ; 26 cm

摘要：1 juan ka shi dai (VHS) (yue 120 fen) : you sheng, cai se ; 1/2 cun

摘要：從書：Dian ji xue yuan dian ji zi xun guo ji xue wei xue cheng(jiao da)-shuo shi lun wen;2014, 2 52 mian : tu, biao ; 30 gong fen.

摘要：36 ye : Tu ; 30 gong fen

摘要：8,114 leaves : ill. ; 30 cm.

摘要：1 juan ka shi dai (120 fen zhong) : you sheng, cai se ; 1/2 cun

摘要：Commenting on Randall Peerenboom’s analysis of an October 2014 decision by China’s ruling Communist Party on legal reform, I make two points here. First, I argue that Peerenboom’s in my view inaccurate account of (positivistic and naturalist) liberal conceptions of law prevents him from understanding the implications of this decision’s deeply illiberal commitment to power concentration and Party supremacy over law. This account fails to appreciate the resources which liberalism offers to engage critically with the operation of a legal system such as that of China, where - as I point out drawing on my work on human rights lawyers - repression of legal and political rights advocacy have been worsening. Second, I suggest that both the Decision and Peerenboom’s analysis do not fully take into account the nature and scope of the challenges the Party-State is facing, especially the challenge arising from an increasing momentum for civic activism and civil disobedience.

摘要：從書：Publication P No 1. 84 pages ; 22 cm.

摘要：153 pages : illustrations (chiefly color) ; 19 cm

摘要：In the course of urbanization in the People's Republic of China, tens of millions of citizens have experienced expropriations of collectively owned land, expropriations of privately owned buildings, and evictions from urban land in state ownership. Summarily characterizing these measures as takings, I argue, first, that some takings observed have denied evictees dignity, understood as respect for their intrinsic moral worth and moral autonomy, in addition to dispossessing them of their land and homes. Second, in dignity takings, monetary compensation and resettlement schemes may fail to reflect the harm done to evictees by framing disputes over takings as (forced) economic bargains. Third, some victims unable to seek redress through judicial avenues have been driven into extrajudicial protest and resistance. In some cases, resistance can be restorative of dignity, but where repressive state responses to resistance prevent this potential from being realized, the injustice of dignity takings can be further aggravated.