热门站点| 世界资料网 | 专利资料网 | 世界资料网论坛
收藏本站| 设为首页| 首页

深化周边联防 共建“平安谢洋”/柯荣辉

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-23 03:26:59  浏览:8833   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载

深化周边联防 共建“平安谢洋”

         柯荣辉  林书设

谢洋乡地处大田县南部,东邻吴山乡,西连漳平市象湖镇、吾祠乡,南界永春县一都镇,东北紧靠石牌镇,是泉州、龙岩、三明三地区结合部。全乡面积115.13平方公里,12个行政村,62个自然村, 88 个村民小组,1799户7856人。但由于所处的特殊地理位置,决定了周边治安环境异常重要,解决好周边地区矛盾纠纷排查工作是谢洋乡社会治安综合治理工作的“重头戏”。前些年周边纠纷和冲突时有发生。近年来,谢洋乡高度重视社会稳定工作,在建设“平安谢洋”的活动中,更是把维护周边的安定稳定作为乡经济社会发展的前提条件和基础性工作,摆上党委、政府的重要议事日程。党政领导班子成员形成了“平安促经济、平安促发展、平安促文明”的共识,保持高度的政治敏锐性,履行维护社会稳定工作的职责,深化周边联防,认真做好矛盾纠纷排查调处工作,坚持从人民群众利益出发,把解决涉及人民群众切身利益的实际问题作为排查调处矛盾纠纷的重点,坚持“预防为主、教育疏导、依法处理、防止激化”的原则,努力把矛盾纠纷化解在基层,化解在萌芽状态。实现了区域平安共建,经济发展联动的良好局面。
一、围绕一条主线,深化周边联防,共建“平安谢洋”
在开展“平安谢洋”建设活动中,谢洋乡以深化开展周边治安联防联调为突破口,积极探索社会稳定工作的新路子,本着有利于情报信息和防范工作,有利于及时准确地打击各类违法犯罪活动、有利于把周边地区矛盾纠纷解决在萌芽状态、有利于沟通联系和群众友好往来、有利于周边区域经济繁荣健康发展的“五个有利于”的原则,以周边乡镇为联防联调协作区域,制订了工作协作配合、治安联合防范、矛盾纠纷联调,经济共同发展的联防联调协作章程和一月一通报治安动态,一季度轮流召开一次周边治安联防联调协作交流会的通报制度和例会制度,彻底扭转了“你管我不管、我管你不管”和“你管我护、我管你护”的治安局面。
二、完善两个体系,不断增强社会治安防范能力
一是加强村级治安防范体系建设。开展以“一区两会三包”为载体的创建活动,构架群防群治工作网络,健全“打防控一体化”的治安防范网络:健全以公安派出所覆盖全辖区的防控网络;健全以群防群治队伍覆盖居民区的防范网络。加强以党支部为核心的村治保会、调委会的组织建设,做到人员、制度、报酬及办公场所的落实;以家庭为单位,以“自我教育、自我管理、自我监督、自我服务、自我受益”为原则,以落实“包学习、包责任、包成效”责任制为载体,增强每个家庭的综治意识和治安防范意识。家庭综治“三包”责任制的联络员,认真对本辖区内农户进行经常性督促指导,使治安防范工作常抓不懈。
二是强化周边联防联调体系建设。在开展深化周边联防,共建“平安谢洋”的活动中,谢洋乡以“联心”为牵头,首先从人头上熟悉、感情上贴近,主动开展周边一都、桃舟、象湖、吾祠等乡镇互访活动,联络感情,增进相互沟通与理解,互通周边治安动态和敏感问题。以“联通”为基础,在边界村仕福、碧山、和春选用思想觉悟高、法律意识强的人当信息员,建立信息报送制度和联络员制度,及时掌握周边治安动态,提高打击防范和快反应能力。以组织做保证,成立谢洋、一都、桃舟、象湖等乡镇周边联防联调协作会。以“联防、联调”为保障,以“谁主管,谁负责”为原则,管好自乡人,办好自乡事,把各类矛盾纠纷消灭在萌芽状态,解决在自己辖区内。如仕福村一名村民因道路纠纷而被一都村民殴打,且被反告殴打他人而被一都派出所留置审查,谢洋乡得到报案后,立即与一都派出所联系,一都派出所于第二天就解除对村民审查并追回被诈3000元。通过行之有效的“联”、“防”措施,联防联调区域内从未发生群众性突发事件,有力地维护了周边地区社会治安稳定。
三、做到三个到位,确保“平安谢洋”建设工作顺利开展
一是组织到位,乡成立了以书记为组长的建设“平安谢洋”工作协调小组,下设创建“平安谢洋”办公室,配备一名专职干部担任创建办主任。加强以各村党支部为核心的基层党组织建设,配齐配强领导班子;充实调整各村治保会、调委会人员,落实待遇,充分发挥其在维护社会稳定中第一道防线作用;巩固和不断壮大基层群防群治队伍,组织广大群众开展各种形式的自防自治活动。二是宣传到位。制订建设“平安谢洋”实施方案,召开建设“平安谢洋”专题会议,广泛宣传发动,进一步统一干部群众思想,提高认识;在象山景区及其它村等地设立“深化周边联防、建设‘平安谢洋’”固定标语4条,发放“一区两会三包”材料1700多份,创建“平安谢洋”宣传提纲1200份,在坑口村召开了“优化旅游环境、创建‘平安谢洋’”村民座谈会一次。三是责任到位。年初政府与各村签订了《谢洋乡2004年社会治安综合治理责任书》,各村书记作为该区社会治安的第一负责人,把“深化周边联防、创建‘平安谢洋’”作为各村年终综治考评的重要内容。
四、抓好四项工作,确保“平安谢洋”建设措施的落实
一是完善村级组织建设,加强以村党支部为核心的村治保会、调委会等组织,做到人员、制度、报酬及办公场所的落实。对特别地段、区域和特殊场所、群体采取特殊措施,如对象山景区这一特殊场所,乡组织成立由坑口村治保会成员,景区工作人员组成的景区治安巡逻队,由坑口村治保主任任队长,一名支委任兼职治安信息员,由治安信息员及时向创建办反馈景区治安信息,报告工作情况。二是抓好矛盾纠纷排查调处,乡综治办、创建办、司法所重点加强对特别地段、特殊人群的矛盾纠纷排查调处工作,在修象山公路期间,司法所与村调委会人员先到可能涉及到的农田、林地山场农户做思想工作十八人次,为象山公路在2个月内完工打下了基础。在今年进行林权改革过程中,遇到了许多山场纠纷事件,如仕福村与一都的林界纠纷,怀德在和春、上珍、碧山的插花地和谢洋村与三角尾村的林场纠纷,都分别通过周边联防联调协作会、林权改革协调小组调处顺利解决。三是抓好安全工作。乡综治委、安全生产领导小组严格按照县委、县政府及其它部门单位的要求,每月对矿山、交通、用电、消防进行至少两次的定期或不定期安全生产检查,每季度进行一次大检查,特别是当前进行的农村道路建设的安全施工工作,及时检查指导,消除可能存在的安全隐患。全乡上半年无发生一例安全事故,人民群众对社会公共安全感和对政法队伍的满意率有较大提高。四是抓好普法工作。年初乡综治委制定了普法依法治理工作计划,加强普法宣传工作。全乡共发放森林防火、基层组织建设、新交通安全法、依法行政等法律法规1200多份,普法讲座一场次,出专栏板报四期,综治副校长及干警在中小学为学生上法制讲座2场次,受教育1000余人。通过这些宣传和反邪教教育活动,极大地提高了全体公民的法律意识和法治观念,推进依法办事进程。
五、确保五个成效,实现“平安谢洋”全面达标
一是违法犯罪活动明显减少,在开展建设“平安谢洋”以来,派出所共受理刑事案件1起(盗窃案件),查处治安案件6起。其中故意损坏公私财物案件1起,“六合彩”赌博案件1起,偷窃案件1起,违反爆炸物品管理规定案件3起。打击处理违法犯罪人员20人,及时有效地打击了辖区的违法犯罪活动,维护了社会的稳定。二是深化联防联调,实现经济互动。在抓好周边治安联防联调协作的基础上,努力使“联防”工作向经济建设协作方向发展,有力地推动周边地区经济繁荣发展。通过周边联防联调工作,不仅能实现社会稳定,也促进地区间经济互动。如通过引进永春一个客商投资1300万元,在仕福村建立的永源水电站,今年年初已实现投产发电;永春另一个客商也正是通过珍山村与一都的交流中获悉珍山有丰富的毛竹资源,在珍山创办了一家竹香厂,使谢洋乡毛竹销量增加40万根;和春的林永镁等种茶户,也是通过到邻近的安溪县打工,学回技术回家种植茶叶,现已带领村民种植茶叶300多亩; 还有仕福岩头铅锌矿在永春一老板投资开采下,已初具规模;而南安瑞兴果林有限公司到坑口水库搞立体养殖项目,是全县第一家引进县外资金开发农业综合的项目。实现了资金进谢洋、信息进谢洋、技术进谢洋,有力推动了谢洋乡新一轮创业。三是营造良好的旅游环境,增加旅游收入。通过在坑口村开展“优化旅游环境,创建‘平安谢洋’”活动,在不断完善象山景区公路、综合服务楼等基础设施建设的同时,实现旅游环境的优化,提高象山景区的休闲旅游质量,增加第三产业收入,在今年的“五一”期间,象山就实现旅游收入五万多元。四是全面达到“平安乡镇”标准,努力实现“五个明显提高、五个明显下降、五个有效遏制、五个有效防止”的目标。五是实现周边稳定,防范能力增强。通过不断完善周边联防联调协作会工作机制,健全周边联防体系,实现了全乡边界半年来的零纠纷,零犯罪案件目标,周边生产生活环境稳定,人民群众安居乐业。通过不断完善两个防范体系建设,逐步架起了群防群治工作网络,形成了“打防控一体化”的治安防范网络,有效增强了防范能力。

作者单位:福建省大田县谢洋乡党委书记 县委政法委办公室主任




下载地址: 点击此处下载

废止商务部、海关总署2003年第36号公告

商务部 海关总署


商务部、海关总署公告2008年第33号

废止商务部、海关总署2003年第36号公告


  为进一步规范完善出口管理,现决定废止商务部、海关总署2003年第36号公告。本公告自发布之日起生效。

  特此公告


                              商 务 部
                             海 关 总 署
                         二〇〇八年五月二十六日
Chapter Ⅲ
Initiation of Panel Procedures


OUTLINE

Section One Role of Consultations: Art. 4
I The Importance of Consultations
II Issues Concerning the “adequacy” of Consultations
Section Two Establishment of Panels: Art. 6.2
I Introduction
II Indication of Consultations Process
III Identification of “the specific measures at issue”
IV Provision of “a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint”
V Concluding Remarks
Section Three Terms of Reference of Panels: Art. 7
I Introduction
II Effect of Consultations on Terms of Reference of Panels
III The “matter referred to the DSB”
Section Four The Mandate of Compliance Panels: Art. 21.5
I Introduction
II Clarification of “measures taken to comply”
III Perspective of Review under Art.21.5
IV Examination of the New Measure in Its Totality and in Its Application
Section Five Third Party Rights : Art. 10
I Introduction
II Generic Third Party Rights: Interpretation of Art. 10.3
III Extended Third Party Rights: Exercise of Panels’ Discretion
IV Summary and Conclusions





Section One
Role of Consultations: Art. 4

The procedures for consultations under the WTO, significantly different from the procedures for good offices, conciliation or mediation as prescribed in Art. 5 of the DSU which remains voluntary options if the parties to the dispute so agree, remains a mandatory first step in the dispute settlement process as embodied with text of Art. 4 of the DSU. However, as to be shown below, there is something to be clarified so as to understand appropriately the role of consultations under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.

I The Importance of Consultations
The practice of GATT contracting parties in regularly holding consultations is testimony to the important role of consultations in dispute settlement. Art. 4.1 of the DSU recognizes this practice and further provides that: “Members affirm their resolve to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the consultation procedures employed by Members.” A number of reports made by panels or by the Appellate Body under the WTO have recognized the value of consultations within the dispute settlement process.
As noted by a panel, Members’ duty to consult concerns a matter with utmost seriousness: “Compliance with the fundamental obligation of WTO Members to enter into consultations where a request is made under the DSU is vital to the operation of the dispute settlement system. Article 4.2 of the DSU provides that ‘[e]ach Member undertakes to accord sympathetic consideration to and afford adequate opportunity for consultation regarding any representations made by another Member concerning measures affecting the operation of any covered agreement taken within the territory of the former’. Moreover, pursuant to Article 4.6 of the DSU, consultations are ‘without prejudice to the rights of any Member in any further proceedings’. In our view, these provisions make clear that Members' duty to consult is absolute, and is not susceptible to the prior imposition of any terms and conditions by a Member.” 1
Another panel addresses the essence of consultations, and they rule there that: “Indeed, in our view, the very essence of consultations is to enable the parties gather correct and relevant information, for purposes of assisting them in arriving at a mutually agreed solution, or failing which, to assist them in presenting accurate information to the panel.”2
The Appellate Body confirms panels’ rulings in this respect. For example, the Appellate Body stresses those benefits afforded by consultations to the dispute settlement system in Mexico-HFCS(DS132)(21.5)as: “[…] Through consultations, parties exchange information, assess the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases, narrow the scope of the differences between them and, in many cases, reach a mutually agreed solution in accordance with the explicit preference expressed in Article 3.7 of the DSU. Moreover, even where no such agreed solution is reached, consultations provide the parties an opportunity to define and delimit the scope of the dispute between them. Clearly, consultations afford many benefits to complaining and responding parties, as well as to third parties and to the dispute settlement system as a whole.”3

II Issues Concerning the “adequacy” of Consultations
As noted above, the procedures for consultations remain a mandatory first step in the dispute settlement process under the WTO. However, does it mean that there is a requirement for the adequacy of consultations before initiating a panel proceeding?
With regard to this issue, on the one hand, the Panel on Alcoholic Beverages (DS75/DS84) finds that, “the WTO jurisprudence so far has not recognized any concept of ‘adequacy’ of consultations”, the Panel Report reads in pertinent part:4
“In our view, the WTO jurisprudence so far has not recognized any concept of ‘adequacy’ of consultations. The only requirement under the DSU is that consultations were in fact held, or were at least requested, and that a period of sixty days has elapsed from the time consultations were requested to the time a request for a panel was made. What takes place in those consultations is not the concern of a panel. The point was put clearly by the Panel in Bananas III, where it was stated:
‘Consultations are […] a matter reserved for the parties. The DSB is not involved; no panel is involved; and the consultations are held in the absence of the Secretariat. While a mutually agreed solution is to be preferred, in some cases it is not possible for parties to agree upon one. In those cases, it is our view that the function of a panel is only to ascertain that the consultations, if required, were in fact held. […]’

版权声明:所有资料均为作者提供或网友推荐收集整理而来,仅供爱好者学习和研究使用,版权归原作者所有。
如本站内容有侵犯您的合法权益,请和我们取得联系,我们将立即改正或删除。
京ICP备14017250号-1