發(fā)布時間：2018-05-27 05:28

  本文選題：群體性事件 + 刑法規(guī)制��； 參考：《西南政法大學》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：社會轉(zhuǎn)型時期的我國當下,隨著經(jīng)濟體制改革的深入進行和政治體制改革的積極推進,利益格局也在經(jīng)歷著結(jié)構(gòu)性的變化,我國社會結(jié)構(gòu)也出現(xiàn)了相應的深層次改變。在此變化過程中,多種經(jīng)濟矛盾、利益沖突和社會矛盾相互滲透、互相影響,不斷助推著我國當下的群體性事件呈現(xiàn)出愈演愈烈的態(tài)勢。但是,在“維穩(wěn)”思維的潛意識影響下,相當一部分官員有著對表面穩(wěn)定的政治偏好、官場處事邏輯的規(guī)則依賴傾向,以及選擇性執(zhí)法的嗜好,從而過于強調(diào)群體性事件處置的“政治”效果,對群體性事件后續(xù)行為中已經(jīng)構(gòu)成犯罪的行為,多是采取行政化追責甚至免責的降格處理。這種處治方式,不僅不符合刑事法治的基本要求,而且也會引起不良的社會示范效應,長遠來看并不利于群體性事件的法治化規(guī)制。對此,刑法只有基于其屬于群體性事件依法規(guī)制的“必備品”和“慎用品”的合理定位,才能做到既不缺位又不越位的合理適時介入。通過刑法的“善治”,讓群體性事件參與者既感受到刑法的“溫情”、又體驗到刑法的“威嚴”,充分發(fā)揮刑法既保障人權(quán)又化解沖突的法律功能,最終實現(xiàn)群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的良善目的�；诖�,對群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的正當性和規(guī)制現(xiàn)狀進行深入探討和系統(tǒng)梳理,對群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的缺陷和完善路徑進行系統(tǒng)總結(jié)和深入探究,從而為群體性事件刑法規(guī)制相關(guān)規(guī)范的日臻完善和有效實施,提供理論參考和策略借鑒,尤顯必要。 除緒論和結(jié)語之外,全文共分五章,共約21余萬字。 第一章,群體性事件概說。對于群體性事件的刑法規(guī)制進行研究,首先應對群體性事件的概念、屬性、類型、成因和發(fā)生過程以及近年來的發(fā)展態(tài)勢有一個較為清晰的了解和把握。首先,該章分別從語言學、政治學、社會學、犯罪學和刑法學的視域?qū)θ后w性事件的概念進行了詳細闡釋和界定。該章界定的刑法學上的“群體性事件”概念為,因某種社會矛盾和某些虛假信息而引發(fā)的,由三人以上的部分人員聚眾共同實施的違反國家法律法規(guī)的串聯(lián)、聚集、游行、圍堵、沖擊、哄搶、聚眾滋事或械斗的騷亂等嚴重擾亂社會秩序、危害公共安全,甚至是“打、砸、搶”等嚴重侵犯公民人身安全和公私財產(chǎn)安全的集群行為。其次,對群體性事件的政治屬性、社會屬性和法律屬性進行了詳細說明和論述。我國大多數(shù)的群體性事件在政治上的基本屬性屬于人民內(nèi)部矛盾；在社會視角的基本屬性是社會結(jié)構(gòu)本身一個不可回避的正�，F(xiàn)象,并且蘊含著一定的社會沖突的功能；在群體性事件與法之關(guān)系的視角上看,群體性事件的法律屬性是一個動態(tài)的、變化的和立體的價值評判問題,存在著合法事件、一般違法事件、治安事件和刑事事件四種可能的法律屬性狀態(tài)。再次,對群體性事件的類型、成因和發(fā)生過程進行了分析和論證。一是刑法規(guī)制視野下的群體性事件可以分為良性群體性事件、中性群體性事件和惡性群體性事件,針對三種類型的群體性事件,刑法的規(guī)制介入應該分別保持消極、謙抑和積極的規(guī)制態(tài)度,方能有利于群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的善治實現(xiàn)；二是群體性事件的成因既有政治原因也有經(jīng)濟原因,既有社會原因也有傳媒原因,另外還有法治原因,該類群體性事件的成因決定刑法關(guān)于群體性事件的介入和干預必須保持自身的謙抑底限；三是群體性事件的發(fā)生過程一般具有孕育階段、準備或醞釀階段、發(fā)生階段、擴大階段和激化變異或萎縮消解階段,不同的群體性事件所經(jīng)歷不同的階段情況決定具體群體性事件不同的法律屬性,進而決定刑法規(guī)制群體性事件的介入態(tài)度或干預程度。最后,就近年來我國群體性事件的發(fā)展態(tài)勢進行了系統(tǒng)總結(jié)和概括,由于經(jīng)濟矛盾、利益分化和社會沖突等綜合社會問題的錯綜復雜,導致當下我國的群體性事件呈現(xiàn)出“誘因日趨復雜、數(shù)量不斷攀升、規(guī)模不斷擴大、危害后果嚴重、控制難度加大”的發(fā)展態(tài)勢。 第二章,群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的正當性。面對當下我國群體性事件愈演愈烈的發(fā)展態(tài)勢,刑法的規(guī)制是否有其必要性和可行性,以及介入干預的程度,是針對群體性事件刑法規(guī)制正當性探討之必要。該章先是從論證群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的必要性入手,接著進一步闡釋了群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的可行性,最后從群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的謙抑性角度,分析論證要遵循群體性事件刑法干預程度的適當,才能確保群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的正當。無論是從群體性事件嚴重社會危害結(jié)果的現(xiàn)實出發(fā),還是基于對群體性事件社會心理控制需要的考慮,群體性事件的刑法規(guī)制均有其必要性。行為不法實質(zhì)根據(jù)的行為功利主義刑法觀和規(guī)則功利主義刑法觀的刑法學理論,為群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的可行性提供了理論基礎(chǔ)；現(xiàn)行刑法典和相關(guān)刑事司法解釋等有關(guān)群體性事件所涉犯罪的部分具體規(guī)定,為其提供了規(guī)范基礎(chǔ)。刑為盛世不能廢、亦為盛世所不能尚。面對群體性事件的日漸頻發(fā)和高漲,刑法的介入和干預盡管不能過于無為甚至是退讓；然而,由于刑法必須明確正確處理自由與安全沖突的提前是堅守刑法的謙抑,群體性事件的刑法規(guī)制必須堅守刑法謙抑的基本立場不被動搖或突破,要求群體性事件的刑法干預不能與一般聚眾犯罪的刑法打擊同等對待和處理。這是由于群體性事件事發(fā)根源的社會原因、經(jīng)濟原因、政治原因及其傳媒原因和法治原因所決定,是由于群體性事件的人民內(nèi)部矛盾性、法律屬性的多樣性、法律評價的平面性和終端性以及刑法介入的限制性所要求。由于群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的適用效果不僅僅是單單體現(xiàn)在刑法適用的法律效果上,更重要的是體現(xiàn)在刑法對于群體性事件規(guī)制的政治效果和社會效果上。故此,關(guān)于群體性事件刑法介入的限制性,應在刑法介入群體性事件的事件性質(zhì)方面進行限制適用；在群體性事件適用刑法的事件參與主體方面進行限制；在群體性事件規(guī)制的法律適用方面,應堅持“民行優(yōu)先、刑法最后”的法律適用原則,對于群體性事件的刑法干預進行最后適用限制。 第三章,群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的現(xiàn)狀。我國現(xiàn)行刑法并沒有關(guān)于群體性事件的專門規(guī)定和罪名,但是,刑法中的共同犯罪、首要分子、轉(zhuǎn)化犯等有關(guān)理論以及刑法分則中規(guī)定的多數(shù)聚眾犯罪,均可以應用到群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的司法實踐中去。首先,該章對我國現(xiàn)行刑事法規(guī)和附屬刑法中關(guān)于群體性事件所涉犯罪的有關(guān)規(guī)定進行了梳理和總結(jié)。然后,對群體性事件所涉犯罪的相關(guān)刑事司法原則和群體性事件與共同犯罪、聚眾犯罪等相互之間的聯(lián)系與區(qū)別進行了分析,對群體性事件相關(guān)行為涉及罪與非罪的界限問題進行了嘗試性的研究和探討。接著,該章以群體性事件所涉犯罪的首要分子之認定、積極參加者之認定和其它參加者之認定為切入點,對群體性事件所涉犯罪的主體責任之承擔問題進行了重點研究。在認定該類首要分子時,一是要注意區(qū)分群體性事件所涉聚眾犯罪的首要分子與主犯之間的羈絆,群體性事件所涉聚眾犯罪的首要分子不一定都是主犯,群體性事件所涉聚眾犯罪的主犯也不一定僅指首要分子,二者既有交叉之處也有不同的地方；群體性事件所涉聚眾犯罪的首要分子一般情況下都是主犯,但也有可能是從犯；群體性事件所涉聚眾犯罪的主犯除首要分子以外,還有其它積極實施實行行為的行為人。二是不應僅拘泥于形式上的稱謂,而應關(guān)注其在涉刑群體性事件中是否真正所起到組織、領(lǐng)導、策劃的作用,結(jié)合其作用、地位和影響來綜合考量。在認定該類積極參加者時,重點考慮參加者在群體性事件相關(guān)涉眾犯罪中的參與熱情和對犯罪所起作用大小,結(jié)合相關(guān)涉眾犯罪的前后情狀,綜合判定。在認定該類其它參加者時,如果其參與是基于被欺騙或脅迫等情形而參加且其參與情節(jié)又較輕的情況下,對其應適當依法從輕或減輕處罰、甚至不予刑事處罰。最后,對于群體性事件所涉轉(zhuǎn)化犯的厘定和共犯脫離問題進行分析研究。對于群體性事件所涉犯罪的首要分子和積極參加者是否屬于轉(zhuǎn)化犯的主體,不能搞一刀切,而應結(jié)合共同犯罪中的實行過限理論具體問題具體認定,綜合考量。對于群體性事件所涉犯罪的共犯脫離問題,應采取共犯脫離標準的因果關(guān)系切斷說,從該類共犯行為人是否基于物理因果性和心理因果性的維度,切斷自身行為與群體性事件相關(guān)犯罪的因果性,來考量是否減免其刑事責任。 第四章,群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的缺陷�，F(xiàn)行刑法對群體性事件的規(guī)制,無論是在刑法學理論層面,還是在刑事立法領(lǐng)域,均存在著一定的缺陷和不足之處。該章從理論制度和立法規(guī)范兩個維度,對群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的缺陷進行總結(jié)和概括。由于群體性事件后續(xù)行為演化的相關(guān)犯罪與現(xiàn)行刑法中規(guī)定的聚眾犯罪,無論是在發(fā)生原因、犯罪動機或危害結(jié)果上,還是在處置后的政治效果、社會效果或法律效果上,均有諸多不同之處。聚眾犯罪并不是為了群體性事件的刑法規(guī)制而設(shè)置,群體性事件也并不都表現(xiàn)為聚眾犯罪,部分典型的聚眾犯罪也與群體性事件并無任何關(guān)涉�；诖�,應用處治聚眾犯罪的傳統(tǒng)司法參照維度進行群體性事件的刑法規(guī)制,難免會有捉襟見肘之窘迫。這些捉襟見肘的不足之處表現(xiàn)在：一方面,表現(xiàn)在群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的原則缺失和我國刑法體系中輕罪制度的缺失,以及傳統(tǒng)“定性”加“定量”的犯罪概念界定模式；另一方面,表現(xiàn)在群體性事件概念的刑事立法缺失和“趨群體性”行為刑法規(guī)制的立法缺失,以及與群體性事件相關(guān)的編謠傳謠行為刑法規(guī)制的立法缺失。尤其是刑事立法關(guān)于群體性事件概念界定的空白,直接影響到2013年9月6日最高人民法院、最高人民檢察院《關(guān)于辦理利用信息網(wǎng)絡實施誹謗等刑事案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》第3條的有效適用。 第五章,群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的完善�；谌后w性事件的刑法規(guī)制在理論層面和立法規(guī)范方面存在的缺陷。為了群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的日臻完善,該章從理論完善和立法完善兩個視角,提出“豐富刑法輕罪理論、完善刑法立法規(guī)范、創(chuàng)新刑法解決機制”的群體性事件刑法規(guī)制完善路徑。首先,確立“堅守刑法謙抑、審慎司法延展,捍衛(wèi)罪責原則、兼顧安全例外,秉承嚴而不厲、適度行政擴張,堅持依法而治、警惕依政施治”的群體性事件刑法規(guī)制基本原則。其次,建構(gòu)群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的輕罪制度,完善輕罪制度下的刑罰配置,改革“定性”加“定量”綜合界定犯罪概念前提下“重罪”文化的“犯罪人”標簽效應。再次,在刑法總則第五章的“其它規(guī)定”內(nèi)容中增設(shè)“群體性事件的含義”的刑法條文,明確群體性事件概念的界定。另外,在建構(gòu)群體性事件刑法規(guī)制輕罪制度的前提下,建構(gòu)“趨群體性”行為的刑法規(guī)制體系。將與群體性事件發(fā)生或事態(tài)升級緊密相關(guān)的先期煽動、糾集行為,和群體性事件后續(xù)行為尚未演變?yōu)榫郾姺缸锴暗陌l(fā)生過程中的一些教唆圍攻、沖擊或打、砸、搶行為,以及群體性事件事態(tài)嚴重惡化情勢下的聚眾拒不解散行為等“趨群體性”行為,納入群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的輕罪犯罪圈,增設(shè)“聚眾拒不解散罪”。最后,完善關(guān)于群體性事件相關(guān)編謠傳謠行為的刑事立法規(guī)制結(jié)構(gòu)。將對于企圖促使群體性事件發(fā)生、擴大甚至是激化的相應編謠、傳謠行為的刑事規(guī)制,上升到刑事立法的規(guī)范地位；將傳播虛假信息引發(fā)群體性事件且嚴重擾亂社會秩序的虛假傳播行為,納入群體性事件刑法規(guī)制的輕罪規(guī)制視野。在刑法分則第六章第一節(jié)的“擾亂公共秩序罪”中,獨立設(shè)置“編造、故意傳播虛假信息罪”。
[Abstract]:In the period of social transformation, with the deepening of the reform of the economic system and the active promotion of the reform of the political system, the structure of interests has also undergone structural changes, and the social structure of our country has also undergone a corresponding deep change. In the process of this change, various economic contradictions, conflicts of interest and social contradictions permeate each other, and each other is permeated with each other. However, under the influence of the subconscious mind of "maintaining stability", a considerable number of officials have a political preference for the stability of the surface, the tendency to rely on the rules of the officialdom logic, and the preference for the choice of law enforcement, so as to overemphasize the place of mass events. The "political" effect, which has already formed a crime in the follow-up behavior of group events, is mostly the reduction of administrative responsibility and even disclaimer, which not only does not conform to the basic requirements of the rule of law in criminal law, but also causes bad social demonstration effect, which is not conducive to the rule of law of group events in the long run. According to the "good governance" in criminal law, the participants of the criminal law can not only feel the "warmth of the criminal law", but also experience the "prestige" of the criminal law. "Strict", give full play to the legal function of the criminal law not only to protect human rights but also to dissolve the conflict, and to finally realize the good purpose of the criminal law regulation of mass incidents. Based on this, this paper makes a thorough discussion and systemically combing the legitimacy and regulation status of the criminal law regulation of mass incidents, and systematically summarizes the defects and the perfect path of the criminal law regulation of group events. And in-depth exploration, thus providing a theoretical reference and strategy reference for the improvement and effective implementation of relevant norms of criminal law regulation of group incidents.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the full text is divided into five chapters, a total of about 21 million words.
In the first chapter, a general introduction to group events. For the study of the criminal law regulation of group events, first, we should have a clear understanding and grasp of the concept, attribute, type, cause and process of group events and the development trend in recent years. First, this chapter is from linguistics, politics, sociology, Criminology and criminal law, respectively. The concept of group events is explained and defined in the field of view. The concept of "mass event" in the chapter of criminal jurisprudence in this chapter is caused by a certain social contradiction and certain false information, which is carried out in series, gathering, parade, encirclement, impact, and rob in violation of national laws and regulations because of some kind of social contradiction and certain false information. It is a cluster behavior that seriously disrupts social order, endangers public security, even "hit, smash, grab" and so on seriously infringe on the personal safety of citizens and the security of public and private property. Secondly, the political attribute, social attribute and legal nature of the group events are explained and discussed in detail. The basic attribute of the sexual event in politics belongs to the internal contradictions of the people; the basic attribute of the social perspective is an unavoidable normal phenomenon in the social structure itself, and contains a certain function of social conflict. In the perspective of the relationship between the group events and the law, the legal attributes of the group events are dynamic and change. There are four possible legal attributes of legal events, general illegal events, public order events and criminal events. Again, the types, causes and process of group events are analyzed and demonstrated. One is that the group events in the vision of criminal law can be divided into benign group events, Neutral group events and malignant group events, aiming at three types of group events, the regulation intervention of criminal law should maintain negative, modest and positive regulation, which can be beneficial to the good governance of the criminal law regulation of group events; the two is that the cause of group events has both political and economic reasons, and the society has both social and economic reasons. There are also the reasons for the media, as well as the reasons for the rule of law. The causes of the group events determine that the intervention and intervention of the criminal law about group events must keep their own modest limits; three, the process of the occurrence of group events generally has the inoculation stage, the stage of preparation or brewing, the stage of occurrence, the expansion stage and the intensification of variation or atrophy. In the elimination stage, the different stages of the group events determine the different legal attributes of the specific group events, and then determine the intervention attitude or the degree of intervention by the criminal law to regulate the group events. Finally, the development trend of the group events in China has been systematically summarized and summarized in recent years, because of the economic contradictions and interests. The complex social problems, such as differentiation and social conflict, lead to the development trend of the current group events in China, which are "increasingly complex, increasing number, expanding scale, serious consequences and increasing control difficulty".
The second chapter, the legitimacy of the criminal law regulation of mass events. Facing the growing trend of the current group events in China, whether the regulation of criminal law has its necessity and feasibility, and the degree of intervention intervention, it is necessary to discuss the legitimacy of the criminal regulation of mass incidents. The chapter first is to demonstrate the criminal regulation of mass incidents. Starting with the necessity, then further explains the feasibility of the criminal law regulation of group events, and finally, from the point of view of the modesty of criminal law regulation of group events, it is necessary to analyze and demonstrate the proper degree of criminal law intervention in group events so as to ensure the proper regulation of the criminal law of group events. On the basis of the reality of the fruit, or based on the consideration of the social psychological control of group events, the criminal law of group events has its necessity. The criminal law theory of the behavioral utilitarianism and the rule utilitarianism, which is not the essence of the law, provides the theoretical basis for the feasibility of the criminal law regulation of mass events. The present criminal code and the relevant criminal judicial interpretations, such as the specific provisions concerning the crime involved in mass incidents, provide a standard basis for it. Punishment can not be abolished in the prosperous world, but also for the prosperity of the world. In the face of the increasing frequency and rise of mass events, the intervention and intervention of the criminal law can not be too inactive or even a retreat, however, however, Because the criminal law must make it clear and correct to deal with the conflict of freedom and security in advance is to stick to the modesty of the criminal law. The criminal law regulation of mass incidents must stick to the basic position of the criminal law and not be shaken or broken. It requires that the criminal law intervention of mass incidents cannot be treated and dealt with with the penalty law of the general public. This is due to the group. The social, economic, political, and media reasons and the reasons for the rule of law of the source of physical events are determined by the contradictions among the people, the diversity of the legal attributes, the plane and terminal of the legal evaluation and the restriction of the intervention of the criminal law. The effect is not only reflected in the legal effect applicable to the criminal law, but also on the political and social effects of the criminal law on the regulation of mass events. Therefore, the restrictive nature of the criminal law intervention for group events should be limited to the nature of the incident in the criminal law. The event is applicable to the subject of the criminal law. In the legal application of the regulation of mass incidents, the principle of "the priority of the people's Bank and the end of the criminal law" should be adhered to, and the final application of the criminal law intervention for group events should be limited.
The third chapter, the current situation of the criminal law regulation of mass incidents. There is no special provisions and charges on mass incidents in the current criminal law of China. However, the common crime in the criminal law, the principal elements, the transformation offenders and other related theories as well as the majority of the crime stipulated in the criminal law can be applied to the judicial practice of the criminal law regulation of group events. First, this chapter reviews and summarizes the relevant provisions of the current criminal law and criminal law related to mass incidents in our country, and then analyzes the relations and differences between the criminal judicial principles of the crime involved in the mass incidents, the mass incidents, the common crime and the crowd crime. On the basis of the identification of the principal elements of the crime involved in the group events, the identification of the active participants and the identification of the other participants as the breakthrough point, the issue of the subject responsibility of the crime involved in the mass event is carried out. In the determination of the principal elements of the class, one should pay attention to the distinction between the principal criminals involved in the mass crime and the fetters of the principal offenders. The principal criminals involved in the mass crime involving mass incidents are not necessarily the principal offenders, and the principal criminals involved in the mass crime are not necessarily only the primary elements, the two are both committed. There are also different places in the fork; the principal criminals involved in the mass crime are generally the principal offender, but it may also be an accessory; the principal offender involved in the mass crime involved in the mass event, except for the principal elements, has other actors to actively carry out the act. Two Pay attention to whether it really plays the role of organization, leadership, planning, and its role, status and influence in the mass incidents involving criminal punishment. When the other participants of the class are identified, if their participation is based on the circumstances of being deceived or coerced and their participation in the circumstances is relatively light, they should be given a light or mitigated punishment and even no criminal punishment in accordance with the law. Finally, the determination of the conversion offense involved in the group event and the separation of the accomplice are made. The main elements of the crime involved in the group event and whether the active participant belongs to the subject of the transformative offense, we should not make one size fits all, but combine the specific problems of the implementation limit theory in the joint crime, and make a comprehensive consideration. For the disengagement of the accomplice of the crime involved in the group event, we should take the accomplice. The causality off the standard says whether the perpetrator of the class is based on the dimensions of physical causality and psychological causality, cutting off the causality of the crimes related to their own behavior and group events to consider whether to reduce their criminal responsibility.
The fourth chapter, the defects of the criminal law regulation of mass incidents. There are some defects and shortcomings in the regulation of the group events in the criminal law, both in the theoretical and the criminal legislation. This chapter sums up the defects in the criminal law regulation of group events from the two dimensions of the theoretical system and the legislative norms. As a result of the related crime of the evolution of the follow-up behavior of group events and the crime of gathering in the current criminal law, there are many differences in the cause, the motive of the crime or the result of the harm, the political effect after the disposal, the social effect or the legal effect. The crime of gathering the crowd is not for the criminal law of the group event. As a result, the group events are not all manifested in the crime of gathering, and some typical crimes are not related to the group events. Based on this, it is unavoidable to apply the traditional judicial reference dimension to the criminal law regulation of mass incidents. Now, on the one hand, it is manifested in the absence of the principle of penal regulation in group incidents and the absence of misdemeanor system in our criminal law system, as well as the traditional "qualitative analysis".
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D631.43;D924.3

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 儲槐植;嚴而不厲:為刑法修訂設(shè)計政策思想[J];北京大學學報(哲學社會科學版);1989年06期

2 蘇力;也許正在發(fā)生——中國當代法學發(fā)展的一個概覽[J];比較法研究;2001年03期

3 王賜江;;群體性事件類型化及發(fā)展趨向[J];長江論壇;2010年04期

4 孫運梁;;客觀歸責在犯罪構(gòu)成體系中的定位及其功能[J];重慶理工大學學報(社會科學);2012年03期

5 張明楷;;日本刑法的發(fā)展及其啟示[J];當代法學;2006年01期

6 楊旺年;轉(zhuǎn)化犯探析[J];法律科學(西北政法學院學報);1992年06期

7 劉仁文;;關(guān)于調(diào)整我國刑法結(jié)構(gòu)的思考[J];法商研究;2007年05期

8 田宏杰;;“風險社會”的刑法立場[J];法商研究;2011年04期

9 梅傳強;胡江;;通過化解社會矛盾實現(xiàn)對群體性事件的有效預防[J];法學雜志;2011年S1期

10 康均心,馬力;群體性事件:一個犯罪學應該關(guān)注的前沿問題[J];法學評論;2002年02期

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前2條

1 劉超;群體性事件研究[D];中國政法大學;2009年

2 王潔;中國群體性事件研究[D];中國政法大學;2011年

，

本文編號：1940645