批转市财政局、物价局《关于征收城市服务补偿费的规定》
作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-09 03:35:17 浏览:9868
来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载
批转市财政局、物价局《关于征收城市服务补偿费的规定》
批转市财政局、物价局《关于征收城市服务补偿费的规定》
天津市政府
各区、县人民政府，各委、局，各直属单位：
市人民政府同意市财政局、物价局《关于征收城市服务补偿费的规定》，现转发给你们，望遵照执行。
关于征收城市服务补偿费的规定
为适应我市城市公用事业发展的需要，对坐落在我市范围内的宾馆、饭店、旅店和招待所，在房费以外，征收城市服务补偿费。
第一条 对在我市的宾馆、饭店、旅店、招待所（含涉外宾馆、饭店、招待所）住宿的旅客，在房费以外，一律加征城市服务补偿费。
第二条 星级宾馆、饭店每人每天5元；其他宾馆、饭店、旅店和招待所每人每天3元。农村小旅店及个体客房每人每天1元。
第三条 城市服务补偿费全部作为市级财政收入，上缴市财政局。任何单位和个人均不得坐支、挪用和截留。
第四条 城市服务补偿费由各宾馆、饭店、旅店和招待所在结收房费的同时单列代征，并于每月终了后按营业税入库期限全部上缴市财政局。
第五条 城市服务补偿费由地方税务部门负责征收和管理。
税务部门解缴城市服务补偿费，使用工商税收通用缴款书，并加盖“城市服务补偿费”印章；北辰、津南、东丽、西青区及各县税务分局可使用通用完税证征收，汇总入库。城市服务补偿费缴入市级国库，以银行统计表中“地方附加”科目核算。
第六条 各级财政、税务、物价、审计、监察等部门，要加强对代征单位和个人的监督检查。对违反本规定的单位和责任人，要按有关法规进行处理。
第七条 本规定由市财政局、市物价局按各自的职能负责解释。
第八条 本规定自一九九四年七月一日起施行。以前有关文件与本规定相抵触的停止执行。
1994年7月1日
下载地址: 点击此处下载
Reviews on the principle of effective nationality
孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.
References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992
深化城市管理体制改革 构建和谐管理执法环境
构建和谐社会是当前我国政治生活最重要的主题。提高构建社会主义和谐社会的能力，必须加强社会管理和建设，推进社会管理体制创新，这是构建社会主义和谐社会的核心。我市在深入研究城市管理规律的基础上，积极创新城市管理方式，完善城市管理体系和政策法规，整合城市管理资源，拓宽服务领域，形成城市管理和社会服务合力，有效促进了我市“和谐杭州”建设事业的发展。
一、构建与“和谐杭州”相适应的城市管理体制
近年来，我市各级党委和政府牢固树立全面、协调、可持续的科学发展观，始终把坚持以人为本，按照“发展、创新、稳定、为民”的要求，始终建立和健全城市管理体制作为高起点推进城市化的重要工作和促进构建“和谐杭州”的战略举措来抓，基本实现了从小城管到大城管、从重突击到重长效、从重单一到重综合、从重载体到重机制、从单兵作战到“市区联动、块抓条保”的转变，城市长效管理水平和综合管理能力有了明显提高，引领“和谐创业”取得了很大进展。
我市在探索和建立新的城市管理体制方面，以转变职能为切入口，优化城市管理内部结构，明确了规划、建设、管理的职能分配框架，努力解决以往城市中普遍存在的“轻规划、重建设、轻管理”现象。在市委、市政府的高度重视下，率先在全国范围内建立“两级政府、三级管理、四级服务”的城市管理体制。“两级政府、三级管理、四级服务”城市管理体制集中反映出如下特点：（1）突出综合管理，实行在综合管理下的专业部门分工责任制；（2）突出层级管理，实行市、区、街、居分层管理，调动各级积极性；（3）突出属地管理，将管理重心下移，突出块块作用；（4）突出群众参与，动员居民、单位参与管理。为了明确三级城市管理层级的管理职能，我市对各层级进行了明确定位：市—规划、决策，督查调控；区—监督、协调，辖区管理；街镇—执行、实施，检查落实。市、区两级通过进一步简政放权，充实街道管理职能，发挥街道管理作用，进一步理顺市、区、街道、社区四级之间的关系，明确各自在城市管理中的职责和作用，建立街面管理新型运作机制，形成“条块结合、以块为主，职责明确、协调配合，统分结合、高效运行”的城市管理体制。2002年市委、市政府制定实施了《关于进一步加强城市管理工作的若干意见》，按照重心下移、属地管理原则，明确市、区、街道、社区在城市管理中的职责分工，强化城区在城市管理中的责任主体地位，“两级政府、三级管理、四级服务”的城市管理体系和“城市政府统一领导、城区政府全面负责、街道（乡镇）具体实施、社区居民共同参与”的城市管理格局基本形成。为广大市民营造便利、安全、舒适、文明的城市环境氛围和把我市建设成为生活居住、旅游购物、学习创业的新天堂这一“和谐杭州”的目标得到了逐步实现，城市管理水平得到了很大提高。
二、建立与“和谐杭州”相适应的城市管理机构
城市管理是一项系统性、综合性、动态性、反复性很强的工作，需要政府有一个专门的部门，对城市管理进行综合性地指挥、协调，保证城市管理这一庞大的系统科学、高效、有序地运转。根据“两级政府、三级管理、四级服务”的城市综合管理体制要求，2003年7月，我市将原市建委和原市政市容管理局直接承担的有关城市管理职能剥离出来，成立城市管理办公室，作为代表市政府行使城市综合管理职能的管理机构，负责牵头协调全市的城市管理。为进一步加快城市化进程，提高城市品位和城市综合竞争力，率先基本实现现代化，按照大都市发展战略目标，根据市委、市政府《关于进一步加强城市管理工作的若干意见》（市委〔2002〕9号）和《关于高起点推进城市化的若干意见》（市委〔2003〕16号）精神，市委、市政府决定，2004年7月，我市设置了区人民政府城市管理办公室。
市区城市管理办公室成立后，努力发挥牵头、协调、整合作用，城市管理齐抓共管格局初步形成。市城管办认真梳理了城市“四化”管理33个方面内容，确立了“四化”管理目标。为确保目标任务的实施，一是建立落实城市管理目标责任制。按照市委、市政府城市管理领导小组要求，将城市管理目标进行分解、细化，根据城区和部门职责，提出目标，明确任务，并与各城区、各部门签订了城市管理目标责任书，纳入了城区和相关部门年度工作目标考核；二是会同市编办、市法制办等界定了各部门在城市“四化”长效管理中的职责。印发了《进一步明确市“三化”管理中市相关部门和单位工作职责的通知》；三是加强跟踪督查和监管考核。建立了块验收条、市验收区相结合的“块抓条保”长效管理考核机制，强化了“属地管理”，增强了管理合力，促进了城市管理各项目标任务的落实。四是建立并落实城市管理“以奖代拨” 考核制度。将“四化”长效管理绩效与区财政投入挂钩，根据考评确定等级和奖励额度，鼓励城区和各部门加大城市管理投入，发挥了市级财政“四两拨千斤”作用。五是整合资源、推进管理无缝链接。建立了市、区两级城市管理综合协调工作网络，通过制定落实全市城市管理联席会议、城区城管办工作例会、“四化”长效管理例会等制度，为市、区及部门间的联系、沟通、协调、联动搭建了工作平台，增强管理合力。同时，按属地管理和责任主体唯一的原则，建立由街道办事处（乡镇政府）牵头的城市管理联席会议制度，定期研究和动态协调区域内城市管理的突出问题，加强街道（乡镇）与部门之间的联系与沟通，形成管理合力。针对城市管理结合部管理中存在的问题，及时梳理、解决了60多个城市管理边界盲区的划分，管理职责的界定，管理要求的明确等问题。市、区两级联动，规划、建设、管理、执法及相关部门密切配合、协同作战，初步形成了城市政府统一领导、城区政府具体实施、各级部门齐抓共管、社会各界和市民群众积极参与城市管理的良好氛围。
三、推进与“和谐杭州”相适应的执法体制改革
1996年《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》的出台，为城市管理执法体制的改革提供了契机，为改革我国的行政执法体制提供了法律依据，也为在城市管理领域确立新的行政执法体制奠定了法律基础。开展相对集中行政处罚权，对于有效克服多头执法、重复处罚、执法扰民等给社会带来极不和谐因素的重要举措。根据国务院法制办和省政府的批复，我市于2001年在城市管理领域正式开展相对集中行政处罚权试点工作，并于同年9月组建了市、区城市管理行政执法局，全面履行七项职能（市容环境卫生、城市规划、城市绿化、市政公用、环境保护方面的社会生活噪声污染和建筑施工噪声污染及城市饮食服务业排污行为、工商管理方面的无照商贩、公安交通管理方面的侵占道路行为），加大城市管理行政执法力度。为了进一步推进我市城市管理相对集中行政处罚权工作，根据《国务院关于进一步推进相对集中行政处罚权工作的决定》（国发[2002]17号）、《国务院办公厅关于继续做好相对集中行政处罚权工作的通知》（国办发[2000]63号）和《国务院办公厅转发中央编办关于清理整顿行政执法队伍实行综合行政执法试点工作意见的通知》（国办发[2002]56号）确定的原则和要求，2003年、2004，我市相继先后在萧山区、余杭区和富阳市成立了城市管理综合行政执法局，开展了相对集中行政处罚权工作。根据中办发[2004]24号文件精神和省关于文化市场综合执法机构改革的要求，积极开展文化市场领域里的相对集中行政处罚权工作，成立了市、区（县、市）文化市场综合执法队伍，着力解决文化市场管理职能交叉、政出多门、多头执法、管理缺失、力量分散等问题。
我市开展相对集中行政处罚权后，行政执法部门以“为人民执法，让人民满意”为中心，坚持“依法、理性、科学、亲民”的和谐执法理念，紧紧构建“和谐杭州”这一主题，有力地发挥城管执法在城市管理工作的保障作用。我市城市管理行政执法在以下几个方面积极的开展工作：一是以机制创新为手段，落实层级执法机制，优化日常巡查机制，探索长效管理执法支撑机，积极走科学执法之路；二是以专项整治为抓手，积极开展非法涂写广告、运输车抛洒滴漏、“门前三包”、非法养犬、国有土地违法建筑、破坏绿化、环保“两噪声一污染”的违章查处，有效地解决了当前城市管理中的热点难点问题；三是以督查考核为动力，全面履行七项职能。2003年查处案件56875件，2004年查处案件133267件，同比增长134.32%。
四、健全与“和谐杭州”相适应的城市管理制度体系
制度建设是适应“两级政府、三级管理、四级服务”城市管理体制和依法管理、规范管理的前提和保障。目前我市已初步建立了与城市管理体制相配套的一系列法规和规章制度。为适应形势发展需要，先后对《杭州市燃气管理条例》、《杭州市城市供水管理条例》、《杭州市城市公共客运管理条例》、《杭州市城市市容和环境卫生管理条例》等管理条例进行了修改。为加强制度建设，先后出台了《杭州市“门前三包”责任制管理办法》、《杭州市建设工程渣土管理办法》、《杭州市无障碍设施建设和管理办法》、《杭州市机动车辆清洗站管理办法》、《杭州市城市生活垃圾管理办法》、《杭州市城市排水管理办法》、《杭州市地下管线盖板管理办法》、《杭州市地下水管理规定》、《杭州市城市供热管理办法》等一系列的政府规章。为弥补制度上的不足，市委、市政府还制订了《杭州市城市洁化绿化亮化长效管理办法》、《关于进一步加强窗口地区市容管理的实施意见》、《杭州市街景市貌长效管理办法》、《关于认真做好燃气供应单位和液化气站点审批工作的通知》等20余个城市管理的规范性文件。为保证城市管理法律法规的贯彻实施，在作业管理方面，制定了《推行市政、环卫设施标准化管理的实施意见》等配套方案和措施。在监督管理方面，建立了市政设施、公用事业、市容环卫三大监管工作机制及日常巡查制度。在公共安全管理方面，制定了城市燃气、供水、防汛、防台、隧道、桥梁等处置突发性事件的预案。这些政策、制度、标准、方案的出台和实施，从各个层面和角度保证了城市管理的统一、有序，使各项管理工作的开展做到有法可依，有章可循。
我市城市管理工作通过深化管理体制改革和建立健全制度体系，城市面貌得到了进一步改善，据我市统计局和市城市管理办公室对全市5000名市民进行问卷调查，结果有10.2%的人认为市区城市管理整体情况“好”，有59.7%的人认为“较好”，两项合计达69.9%。在获得了“国家卫生城市”、“全国创建文明城市工作先进城市”、“中国优秀旅游城市”、“全国环境综合整治优秀城市”、“国家园林城市”、“全国绿化先进单位”、联合国“人居奖”、“中国人居环境奖”等荣誉称号的同时，市民对城市管理的满意度也在逐年提高。（卞军民）
孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.
References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992
深化城市管理体制改革 构建和谐管理执法环境
构建和谐社会是当前我国政治生活最重要的主题。提高构建社会主义和谐社会的能力，必须加强社会管理和建设，推进社会管理体制创新，这是构建社会主义和谐社会的核心。我市在深入研究城市管理规律的基础上，积极创新城市管理方式，完善城市管理体系和政策法规，整合城市管理资源，拓宽服务领域，形成城市管理和社会服务合力，有效促进了我市“和谐杭州”建设事业的发展。
一、构建与“和谐杭州”相适应的城市管理体制
近年来，我市各级党委和政府牢固树立全面、协调、可持续的科学发展观，始终把坚持以人为本，按照“发展、创新、稳定、为民”的要求，始终建立和健全城市管理体制作为高起点推进城市化的重要工作和促进构建“和谐杭州”的战略举措来抓，基本实现了从小城管到大城管、从重突击到重长效、从重单一到重综合、从重载体到重机制、从单兵作战到“市区联动、块抓条保”的转变，城市长效管理水平和综合管理能力有了明显提高，引领“和谐创业”取得了很大进展。
我市在探索和建立新的城市管理体制方面，以转变职能为切入口，优化城市管理内部结构，明确了规划、建设、管理的职能分配框架，努力解决以往城市中普遍存在的“轻规划、重建设、轻管理”现象。在市委、市政府的高度重视下，率先在全国范围内建立“两级政府、三级管理、四级服务”的城市管理体制。“两级政府、三级管理、四级服务”城市管理体制集中反映出如下特点：（1）突出综合管理，实行在综合管理下的专业部门分工责任制；（2）突出层级管理，实行市、区、街、居分层管理，调动各级积极性；（3）突出属地管理，将管理重心下移，突出块块作用；（4）突出群众参与，动员居民、单位参与管理。为了明确三级城市管理层级的管理职能，我市对各层级进行了明确定位：市—规划、决策，督查调控；区—监督、协调，辖区管理；街镇—执行、实施，检查落实。市、区两级通过进一步简政放权，充实街道管理职能，发挥街道管理作用，进一步理顺市、区、街道、社区四级之间的关系，明确各自在城市管理中的职责和作用，建立街面管理新型运作机制，形成“条块结合、以块为主，职责明确、协调配合，统分结合、高效运行”的城市管理体制。2002年市委、市政府制定实施了《关于进一步加强城市管理工作的若干意见》，按照重心下移、属地管理原则，明确市、区、街道、社区在城市管理中的职责分工，强化城区在城市管理中的责任主体地位，“两级政府、三级管理、四级服务”的城市管理体系和“城市政府统一领导、城区政府全面负责、街道（乡镇）具体实施、社区居民共同参与”的城市管理格局基本形成。为广大市民营造便利、安全、舒适、文明的城市环境氛围和把我市建设成为生活居住、旅游购物、学习创业的新天堂这一“和谐杭州”的目标得到了逐步实现，城市管理水平得到了很大提高。
二、建立与“和谐杭州”相适应的城市管理机构
城市管理是一项系统性、综合性、动态性、反复性很强的工作，需要政府有一个专门的部门，对城市管理进行综合性地指挥、协调，保证城市管理这一庞大的系统科学、高效、有序地运转。根据“两级政府、三级管理、四级服务”的城市综合管理体制要求，2003年7月，我市将原市建委和原市政市容管理局直接承担的有关城市管理职能剥离出来，成立城市管理办公室，作为代表市政府行使城市综合管理职能的管理机构，负责牵头协调全市的城市管理。为进一步加快城市化进程，提高城市品位和城市综合竞争力，率先基本实现现代化，按照大都市发展战略目标，根据市委、市政府《关于进一步加强城市管理工作的若干意见》（市委〔2002〕9号）和《关于高起点推进城市化的若干意见》（市委〔2003〕16号）精神，市委、市政府决定，2004年7月，我市设置了区人民政府城市管理办公室。
市区城市管理办公室成立后，努力发挥牵头、协调、整合作用，城市管理齐抓共管格局初步形成。市城管办认真梳理了城市“四化”管理33个方面内容，确立了“四化”管理目标。为确保目标任务的实施，一是建立落实城市管理目标责任制。按照市委、市政府城市管理领导小组要求，将城市管理目标进行分解、细化，根据城区和部门职责，提出目标，明确任务，并与各城区、各部门签订了城市管理目标责任书，纳入了城区和相关部门年度工作目标考核；二是会同市编办、市法制办等界定了各部门在城市“四化”长效管理中的职责。印发了《进一步明确市“三化”管理中市相关部门和单位工作职责的通知》；三是加强跟踪督查和监管考核。建立了块验收条、市验收区相结合的“块抓条保”长效管理考核机制，强化了“属地管理”，增强了管理合力，促进了城市管理各项目标任务的落实。四是建立并落实城市管理“以奖代拨” 考核制度。将“四化”长效管理绩效与区财政投入挂钩，根据考评确定等级和奖励额度，鼓励城区和各部门加大城市管理投入，发挥了市级财政“四两拨千斤”作用。五是整合资源、推进管理无缝链接。建立了市、区两级城市管理综合协调工作网络，通过制定落实全市城市管理联席会议、城区城管办工作例会、“四化”长效管理例会等制度，为市、区及部门间的联系、沟通、协调、联动搭建了工作平台，增强管理合力。同时，按属地管理和责任主体唯一的原则，建立由街道办事处（乡镇政府）牵头的城市管理联席会议制度，定期研究和动态协调区域内城市管理的突出问题，加强街道（乡镇）与部门之间的联系与沟通，形成管理合力。针对城市管理结合部管理中存在的问题，及时梳理、解决了60多个城市管理边界盲区的划分，管理职责的界定，管理要求的明确等问题。市、区两级联动，规划、建设、管理、执法及相关部门密切配合、协同作战，初步形成了城市政府统一领导、城区政府具体实施、各级部门齐抓共管、社会各界和市民群众积极参与城市管理的良好氛围。
三、推进与“和谐杭州”相适应的执法体制改革
1996年《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》的出台，为城市管理执法体制的改革提供了契机，为改革我国的行政执法体制提供了法律依据，也为在城市管理领域确立新的行政执法体制奠定了法律基础。开展相对集中行政处罚权，对于有效克服多头执法、重复处罚、执法扰民等给社会带来极不和谐因素的重要举措。根据国务院法制办和省政府的批复，我市于2001年在城市管理领域正式开展相对集中行政处罚权试点工作，并于同年9月组建了市、区城市管理行政执法局，全面履行七项职能（市容环境卫生、城市规划、城市绿化、市政公用、环境保护方面的社会生活噪声污染和建筑施工噪声污染及城市饮食服务业排污行为、工商管理方面的无照商贩、公安交通管理方面的侵占道路行为），加大城市管理行政执法力度。为了进一步推进我市城市管理相对集中行政处罚权工作，根据《国务院关于进一步推进相对集中行政处罚权工作的决定》（国发[2002]17号）、《国务院办公厅关于继续做好相对集中行政处罚权工作的通知》（国办发[2000]63号）和《国务院办公厅转发中央编办关于清理整顿行政执法队伍实行综合行政执法试点工作意见的通知》（国办发[2002]56号）确定的原则和要求，2003年、2004，我市相继先后在萧山区、余杭区和富阳市成立了城市管理综合行政执法局，开展了相对集中行政处罚权工作。根据中办发[2004]24号文件精神和省关于文化市场综合执法机构改革的要求，积极开展文化市场领域里的相对集中行政处罚权工作，成立了市、区（县、市）文化市场综合执法队伍，着力解决文化市场管理职能交叉、政出多门、多头执法、管理缺失、力量分散等问题。
我市开展相对集中行政处罚权后，行政执法部门以“为人民执法，让人民满意”为中心，坚持“依法、理性、科学、亲民”的和谐执法理念，紧紧构建“和谐杭州”这一主题，有力地发挥城管执法在城市管理工作的保障作用。我市城市管理行政执法在以下几个方面积极的开展工作：一是以机制创新为手段，落实层级执法机制，优化日常巡查机制，探索长效管理执法支撑机，积极走科学执法之路；二是以专项整治为抓手，积极开展非法涂写广告、运输车抛洒滴漏、“门前三包”、非法养犬、国有土地违法建筑、破坏绿化、环保“两噪声一污染”的违章查处，有效地解决了当前城市管理中的热点难点问题；三是以督查考核为动力，全面履行七项职能。2003年查处案件56875件，2004年查处案件133267件，同比增长134.32%。
四、健全与“和谐杭州”相适应的城市管理制度体系
制度建设是适应“两级政府、三级管理、四级服务”城市管理体制和依法管理、规范管理的前提和保障。目前我市已初步建立了与城市管理体制相配套的一系列法规和规章制度。为适应形势发展需要，先后对《杭州市燃气管理条例》、《杭州市城市供水管理条例》、《杭州市城市公共客运管理条例》、《杭州市城市市容和环境卫生管理条例》等管理条例进行了修改。为加强制度建设，先后出台了《杭州市“门前三包”责任制管理办法》、《杭州市建设工程渣土管理办法》、《杭州市无障碍设施建设和管理办法》、《杭州市机动车辆清洗站管理办法》、《杭州市城市生活垃圾管理办法》、《杭州市城市排水管理办法》、《杭州市地下管线盖板管理办法》、《杭州市地下水管理规定》、《杭州市城市供热管理办法》等一系列的政府规章。为弥补制度上的不足，市委、市政府还制订了《杭州市城市洁化绿化亮化长效管理办法》、《关于进一步加强窗口地区市容管理的实施意见》、《杭州市街景市貌长效管理办法》、《关于认真做好燃气供应单位和液化气站点审批工作的通知》等20余个城市管理的规范性文件。为保证城市管理法律法规的贯彻实施，在作业管理方面，制定了《推行市政、环卫设施标准化管理的实施意见》等配套方案和措施。在监督管理方面，建立了市政设施、公用事业、市容环卫三大监管工作机制及日常巡查制度。在公共安全管理方面，制定了城市燃气、供水、防汛、防台、隧道、桥梁等处置突发性事件的预案。这些政策、制度、标准、方案的出台和实施，从各个层面和角度保证了城市管理的统一、有序，使各项管理工作的开展做到有法可依，有章可循。
我市城市管理工作通过深化管理体制改革和建立健全制度体系，城市面貌得到了进一步改善，据我市统计局和市城市管理办公室对全市5000名市民进行问卷调查，结果有10.2%的人认为市区城市管理整体情况“好”，有59.7%的人认为“较好”，两项合计达69.9%。在获得了“国家卫生城市”、“全国创建文明城市工作先进城市”、“中国优秀旅游城市”、“全国环境综合整治优秀城市”、“国家园林城市”、“全国绿化先进单位”、联合国“人居奖”、“中国人居环境奖”等荣誉称号的同时，市民对城市管理的满意度也在逐年提高。（卞军民）
