北京市发展计划委员会信息（新闻）发布办法
作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-12 04:37:54 浏览:9520
来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载
北京市发展计划委员会信息（新闻）发布办法
关于印发《北京市发展计划委员会信息（新闻）发布办法》的通知 北京市发展计划委员会
(京计政策文[2003]294号)
各处室、各直属单位：
现将《北京市发展计划委员会信息（新闻）发布办法》印发给你们，请遵照执行。
北京市发展计划委员会办公室
二○○三年二月二十七日
北京市发展计划委员会信息（新闻）发布办法
一、为适应建立社会主义市场经济体制的要求，加强信息引导，改进调控手段，根据市委办公厅、市政府办公厅《关于转发＜市委宣传部关于在各部委办局、各区县设立新闻发言人规范新闻发布制度的意见＞的通知》（京办字[2003]1号）精神，结合本委实际情况，制定本办法。
二、信息（新闻）发布工作应遵循以下原则：
1、坚持党的基本路线，积极宣传贯彻党和国家的各项方针政策，全面贯彻市委市政府的工作部署；
2、坚持为国民经济和社会发展服务，为改革开放服务，正确引导市场运行和经济活动；
3、坚持解放思想，实事求是，鼓舞士气，增强信心；
4、坚持正确的舆论导向，力求及时、准确，提高信息（新闻）发布质量；
5、严格执行市委市政府关于信息（新闻）发布的各项规定。严格遵守《中华人民共和国保密法》，不得泄露国家机密。
三、信息（新闻）发布的主要形式：
1、召开信息（新闻）发布会；
2、接受新闻单位采访；
3、向新闻媒体提供稿件或声像资料；
4、在计委主办的网站上发布信息。
四、信息（新闻）发布工作的组织：
信息（新闻）发布工作在委党组领导下进行。主管政策法规处的委领导是本委新闻发言人，主管信息(新闻)发布工作。政策法规处处长是本委新闻发言人联络员，负责与市委宣传部和新闻单位的联系，完成新闻发言人委托的事务性工作。政策法规处是本委信息发布工作的办事机构，根据委主任和新闻发言人的要求，组织协调全委信息（新闻）发布工作。
五、信息(新闻)发布工作程序
1、信息（新闻）发布会。委党组围绕市委市政府在不同时期经济工作的中心任务和经济生活中的重大问题，研究确定市计委信息（新闻）发布的选题、内容、范围和形式；召开一般信息（新闻）发布会，由分管委领导提出发布的选题、内容、范围和形式，报委主任审定。政策法规处负责提出会议方案报新闻发言人审定，并具体组织协调落实，按照规定做好有关备案工作。各有关处室负责准备信息（新闻）发布所需的稿件、资料，报主管主任审定，并按照方案要求配合做好相关工作。
召开下列情况的信息（新闻）发布会需要提前报批：
（1）发布涉及全市经济发展、城市建设和与群众生活密切相关的新政策、新规划、新举措，全市重点建设项目，以及其他社会敏感和群众关心的问题，应当提前报市领导审批。专题性信息（新闻）发布会，有关处室负责办理主管市领导同意公开宣传的批文，并最迟于发布会的前三天将批文送交政策法规处，由政策法规处报市委宣传部。综合性信息（新闻）发布会，由政策法规处统一办理报批手续，有关处室负责提供所需材料等相关工作。
（2）按照《市委宣传部关于在各部委办局、各区县设立新闻发言人规范新闻发布制度的意见》规定，凡邀请境外记者参加的，应事先报市政府外办（港澳办）、市政府台办和市政府新闻办等部门审批，由市政府新闻办组织新闻发布会。我委信息（新闻）发布会需要邀请境外记者参加的，由政策法规处统一办理报批手续，有关处室负责提供所需材料等相关工作。
2、接受新闻单位采访。新闻单位到我委进行采访，应到政策法规处进行登记，由政策法规处根据采访内容上报委新闻发言人或相关委领导签发新闻采访单，重要采访单由委主任签发。有关处室或直属单位按照规定时间和内容完成新闻采访任务后，应及时将新闻采访单送政策法规处备案。
3、各处室和直属单位以市计委名义向新闻媒体提供新闻通稿和其他稿件、声像资料，或者在我委主办的网站上发布重要信息，应先报送主管领导审定，必要时由委主任审定；发布后报政策法规处备案。
4、邀请记者参加以发布信息（新闻）为目的的各种新闻通气会、座谈会、情况通报会等，有关处室应提前准备新闻通稿并经主管领导审定，并事先与政策法规处联系，由政策法规处安排邀请记者事宜。涉及前述（1）（2）项规定需要提前报批的情况的，按照信息（新闻）发布会的报批程序办理。
六、计委机关各处室及各直属单位应当高度重视计委信息（新闻）发布工作，按照委主任及委新闻发言人的要求，及时、高质量地为全委信息（新闻）发布撰写或提供与本单位有关的文字材料和声像资料。在接受采访或发布信息（新闻）时，应当严格执行有关程序和保密规定，任何个人不得擅自以市计委名义对外发布信息或接受记者采访。
七、本办法自2003年3月1日起施行，原《北京市发展计划委员会信息（新闻）发布暂行办法》（京计政策字[2001]561号）同时废止。
下载地址: 点击此处下载
中华人民共和国外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者采访条例
中华人民共和国国务院令
第537号
《中华人民共和国外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者采访条例》已经2008年10月17日国务院第31次常务会议通过，现予公布，自2008年10月17日起施行。
总理 温家宝
二○○八年十月十七日
中华人民共和国外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者采访条例
第一条 为了便于外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者在中华人民共和国境内依法采访报道，促进国际交往和信息传播，制定本条例。
第二条 本条例所称外国常驻新闻机构，是指外国新闻机构在中国境内设立、从事新闻采访报道业务的分支机构。
本条例所称外国记者包括外国常驻记者和外国短期采访记者。外国常驻记者是指由外国新闻机构派遣，在中国境内常驻6个月以上、从事新闻采访报道业务的职业记者；外国短期采访记者是指在中国境内停留期不超过6个月、从事新闻采访报道业务的职业记者。
第三条 中国实行对外开放的基本国策，依法保障外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者的合法权益，并为其依法从事新闻采访报道业务提供便利。
第四条 外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者应当遵守中国法律、法规和规章，遵守新闻职业道德，客观、公正地进行采访报道，不得进行与其机构性质或者记者身份不符的活动。
第五条 中华人民共和国外交部（以下简称外交部）主管外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者事务。国务院新闻办公室和其他部门在各自职责范围内负责外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者有关事务。
地方人民政府外事部门受外交部委托，办理本行政区域内外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者事务。地方人民政府新闻办公室和其他部门在各自职责范围内负责本行政区域内外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者有关事务。
第六条 外国新闻机构在中国境内设立常驻新闻机构、向中国派遣常驻记者，应当经外交部批准。
第七条 外国新闻机构申请在中国境内设立常驻新闻机构，应当直接或者通过中国驻外使领馆向外交部提交以下材料：
（一）由该新闻机构总部主要负责人签署的书面申请；
（二）该新闻机构情况介绍；
（三）拟设立机构的负责人、拟派遣的常驻记者以及工作人员情况介绍；
（四）该新闻机构在所在国设立的证明文件副本。
第八条 在中国境内设立常驻新闻机构的申请经批准后，该常驻新闻机构负责人应当自抵达中国之日起7个工作日内，持本人护照到外交部办理外国常驻新闻机构证；其中，驻北京市以外地区的常驻新闻机构，其负责人应当自抵达中国之日起7个工作日内，持本人护照到外交部委托的地方人民政府外事部门办理外国常驻新闻机构证。
第九条 外国新闻机构申请向中国派遣常驻记者，应当直接或者通过中国驻外使领馆向外交部提交以下材料：
（一）由该新闻机构总部负责人签署的书面申请；
（二）拟派遣记者情况介绍；
（三）拟派遣记者在所在国从事职业活动的证明文件副本。
两个以上外国新闻机构派遣同一名常驻记者的，应当依照前款规定分别办理申请手续，并在各自的书面申请中注明该记者所兼职的外国新闻机构。
第十条 向中国派遣常驻记者的申请经批准后，被派遣的外国记者应当自抵达中国之日起7个工作日内，持本人护照到外交部办理外国常驻记者证；其中，驻北京市以外地区的常驻记者，应当自抵达中国之日起7个工作日内，持本人护照到外交部委托的地方人民政府外事部门办理外国常驻记者证。
外国记者办理外国常驻记者证后，应当到居住地公安机关办理居留证。
第十一条 外国常驻新闻机构变更机构名称、常驻地区等事项，应当向外交部提交书面申请，经批准后办理变更手续。
外国常驻新闻机构变更负责人、办公地址等事项，应当在变更后7个工作日内书面告知外交部；其中，驻北京市以外地区的常驻新闻机构变更负责人、办公地址等事项，应当在变更后7个工作日内书面告知外交部委托的地方人民政府外事部门。
第十二条 外国常驻记者证有效期届满需要延期的，外国常驻记者应当提前向外交部或者外交部委托的地方人民政府外事部门提出申请，办理延期手续；逾期不办理的，视为自动放弃外国常驻记者资格，其外国常驻记者证将被注销。
第十三条 外国常驻新闻机构拟终止业务的，应当在终止业务30日前告知外交部，并自终止业务之日起7个工作日内到外交部或者外交部委托的地方人民政府外事部门办理外国常驻新闻机构证及其常驻记者的外国常驻记者证注销手续。
外国常驻新闻机构连续10个月以上无常驻记者，视为该机构已经自动终止业务，其外国常驻新闻机构证将被注销。
外国常驻记者在中国境内居留时间每年累计少于6个月的，其外国常驻记者证将被注销。
外国常驻新闻机构应当在其常驻记者离任前到外交部或者外交部委托的地方人民政府外事部门办理该记者外国常驻记者证注销手续。
第十四条 外国常驻新闻机构证、外国常驻记者证被注销后，应当向社会公布。
外国常驻记者证被注销的记者，其记者签证自注销之日起10日后自动失效。
外国常驻记者证被注销的记者，应当自外国常驻记者证被注销之日起10日内持相关证明，到居住地公安机关申请办理签证或者居留证变更登记。
第十五条 外国记者常驻或者短期采访，应当向中国驻外使领馆或者外交部授权的签证机构申请办理记者签证。
第十六条 外国记者随国家元首、政府首脑、议长、王室成员或者高级政府官员来中国访问，应当由该国外交部或者相关部门向中国驻外使领馆或者外交部授权的签证机构统一申请办理记者签证。
第十七条 外国记者在中国境内采访，需征得被采访单位和个人的同意。
外国记者采访时应当携带并出示外国常驻记者证或者短期采访记者签证。
第十八条 外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者可以通过外事服务单位聘用中国公民从事辅助工作。外事服务单位由外交部或者外交部委托的地方人民政府外事部门指定。
第十九条 外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者因采访报道需要，在依法履行报批手续后，可以临时进口、设置和使用无线电通信设备。
第二十条 外国人未取得或者未持有有效的外国常驻记者证或者短期采访记者签证，在中国境内从事新闻采访报道活动的，由公安机关责令其停止新闻采访报道活动，并依照有关法律予以处理。
第二十一条 外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者违反本条例规定的，由外交部予以警告，责令暂停或者终止其业务活动；情节严重的，吊销其外国常驻新闻机构证、外国常驻记者证或者记者签证。
第二十二条 外国常驻新闻机构和外国记者违反中国其他法律、法规和规章规定的，依法处理；情节严重的，由外交部吊销其外国常驻新闻机构证、外国常驻记者证或者记者签证。
第二十三条 本条例自2008年10月17日起施行。1990年1月19日国务院公布的《外国记者和外国常驻新闻机构管理条例》同时废止。
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
