枣庄市人民代表大会常务委员会人事任免办法（2008修正）

上一篇: 枣庄市人民代表大会常务委员会组成人员守则
下一篇: 福建省计划生育条例（修正）

重庆市人民政府


重庆市三峡库区移民资金管理办法

第 70 号


《重庆市三峡库区移民资金管理办法》已经2000年2月27日市人民政府第54次常务会议审议通过，现予发布，自发布之日起施行。


市 长

二ＯＯＯ年三月一日



第一章 总则
第一条 为了加强三峡工程重庆库区移民资金管理，确保移民资金有计划使用，保障库区移民任务完成，根据《长江三峡工程建设移民条例》和国家关于三峡工程库区移民资金管理的有关规定，结合本市实际，制定本办法。
第二条 本市各级人民政府、移民主管部门、移民迁建单位管理和使用三峡工程移民资金（以下简称移民资金）必须遵守本办法。
第三条 本办法所称移民资金，是指国家安排用于三峡工程重庆库区移民项目及移民工作的专项投资，包括农村移民安置补偿费、农村移民外迁补助费、城（集）镇迁建补偿费、工矿企业迁建补偿费、专业设施复建费、环境保护费、行政管理费、培训费、科研费、规划费、勘测设计费
、监理费、基本预备费、移民土地出让金、返还的移民耕地占用税以及上述各项资金的存款利息等。
第四条 本办法所称移民项目，是指三峡工程重庆库区移民搬迁安置及库区淹没处理投资项目，分为农村移民安置、城（集）镇迁建、工矿企业迁建、专业设施复建、环境保护等五大类。
第五条 移民资金按国家有关规定，根据移民任务分解包干到库区区县（自治县、市）人民政府和有关责任单位，其中移民项目资金按大类包干。各区县（自治县、市）人民政府和有关责任单位应在包干的限额内安排使用移民资金，并确保移民任务按期完成。
第六条 移民资金实行统一计划、分级管理、专款专用。
第七条 移民资金实行静态控制、动态管理。年度移民投资计划为当年价格水平的动态投资。价差的测算按国务院三建委移民开发局的规定执行。
第八条 库区各级人民政府应加强对移民资金管理和使用工作的领导和监督，负责本行政区移民任务和投资计划的统一组织实施。
第九条 各级移民主管部门（机构）在本级人民政府的领导下，负责本级移民资金的管理工作，同时接受上级移民主管部门的指导、监督。
各级审计部门负责移民资金管理和使用的审计监督。
各级监察部门负责移民资金管理和使用的监督检查。

第二章 计划的制定和实施
第十条 全市年度移民任务及投资计划由市移民主管部门负责编制和监督实施。
库区各区县（自治县、市）移民主管部门负责本行政区年度移民任务及投资计划实施方案的编制和具体实施。
第十一条 制定年度移民投资计划应以移民补偿投资切块包干方案和《三峡工程库区重庆市分县移民安置规划》（以下简称分县移民安置规划）为依据，根据《三峡工程库区重庆市移民迁建进度及分年投资规划》和国务院三建委移民开发局下达的年度移民投资计划，结合本地实际，确
定库区各区县（自治县、市）及有关单位的年度移民任务，按移民任务落实相应的投资额度。
第十二条 全市年度移民任务及投资计划按以下程序制定；
（一）各乡镇人民政府、街道办事处及移民迁建单位依据分县移民安置规划，结合本地本单位实际，提出下一年度移民计划及动态投资建议意见，在规定的时间内报所在地的区县（自治县、市）移民主管部门。
（二）各区县（自治县、市）移民主管部门对上报的年度移民计划及投资建议汇总平衡并经本级人民政府审定后形成建议方案，按规定的时间报送市移民主管部门；市直管项目单位的年度移民计划及投资建议方案在规定的时间内直接报送市移民主管部门。
（三）市移民局对区县（自治县、市）和市直管项目单位的建议方案汇总平衡形成全市的年度移民计划及投资建议方案，经市人民政府审定后报国务院三建委移民开发局。
（四）市移民主管部门根据国务院三建委移民开发局下达的年度移民投资计划和本办法的有关规定，结合本市实际，编制全市年度移民任务及投资计划，经市人民政府批准后下达各区县（自治县、市）移民主管部门及市直管项目单位，并报国务院三建委移民开发局备案。
第十三条 全市年度移民任务及投资计划中的移民项目资金按以下规定安排；
（一）城市（县城）迁建基础设施费、工矿企业迁建费、专业设施复建费、环境保护费直接安排到项目；
（二）城市（县城）迁建的建房以区县（自治县、市）为单位安排建房面积及资金；
（三）农村移民生活安置以乡镇为单位安排移民安置人数、建房面积及资金；
（四）农村移民生产安置以乡镇为单位安排移民安置人数及资金；
（五）集镇迁建的基础设施建设以乡镇为单位安排投资额；
（六）集镇迁建的建房以乡镇为单位安排建房面积及投资额。
第十四条 各区县（自治县、市）移民主管部门根据市移民主管部门下达的年度移民任务及投资计划，并按下列要求编制本辖区内年度移民投资计划实施方案，经本级人民政府批准后下达乡镇人民政府、街道办事处和移民迁建单位，并报市移民主管部门备案：
（一）城市（镇）建房面积及资金分解落实到淹没单位或街道办事处；
（二）农村移民生活安置人数、建房面积及投资分解落实到组；
（三）农村移民生活安置人数及投资分解落实到村、组；
（四）集镇搬迁基础设施投资落实到项目；
（五）集镇搬迁建房面积及投资分解落实到搬迁单位和居民户。
第十五条 勘测设计费、行政管理费、培训费、科研费、规划费、监理费、移民耕地占用税、移民土地出让金和移民经费存款利息必须纳入计划管理。具体管理办法按国家和市有关规定执行。
农村移民外迁补助费的管理和使用按国家有关规定执行。
第十六条 年度移民任务及投资计划属指令性计划，不得随意调整。确需调整的，按以下规定报批：
（一）对区县（自治县、市）制定的年度移民投资计划实施方案进行调整，由乡镇人民政府、街道办事处或移民迁建单位报区县（自治县、市）移民主管部门，由移民主管部门提出意见报本级人民政府批准；
（二）对市移民主管部门下达的年度移民投资计划进行调整，由区县（自治县、市）移民主管部门或市直管项目单位报市移民主管部门，由市移民主管部门提出意见，报市人民政府批准；
（三）跨移民项目大类调整，由市移民主管部门提出意见，经市人民政府同意后报国务院三建委移民开发局审批。
第十七条 年度移民任务及投资计划的执行实行目标责任制，由市人民政府与区县（自治县、市）人民政府、区县（自治县、市）人民政府与乡镇人民政府签订目标责任书，落实责任人。市人民政府委托市移民主管部门组织对区县（自治县、市）计划完成情况进行检查验收。

第三章 资金使用管理
第十八条 除第十九条所列情形外，移民资金的拨付必须按年度移民投资计划进行。移民主管部门（机构）应按计划、按投资包干合同、按工程进度及时向下级移民主管部门（机构）或迁建单位（施工单位）拨付资金。各级经办银行应认真履行职责，及时拨付资金，并加强对迁建单位
移民资金使用的监督和管理。
第十九条 有下列情形之一，经本级人民政府批准，可以延迟或暂停拨付移民资金：
（一）上级拨付的移民资金没有到位；
（二）迁建单位违反投资包干合同使用移民资金；
（三）施工单位没有完成规定的工程进度；
（四）因不可抗力致使移民资金无法及时拨付；
（五）其他有可能导致移民资金损失或流失的情形。
第二十条 各级新城迁建指挥部（管委会）不是一级财务核算单位。移民主管部门拨付迁建单位或施工单位的移民项目资金不得经新城迁建指挥部（管委会）转拨。
第二十一条 区县（自治县、市）、乡镇人民政府和移民迁建单位对拨付的移民经费必须专户储存、专帐管理、专款专用、专帐核算。各区县（自治县、市）和乡镇的移民经费应由本级移民主管部门（机构）直接控制管理；未设立移民主管部门（机构）的应有专门的机构或配备专人负
责移民经费的管理工作，并接受上级移民主管部门的指导和监督。
第二十二条 移民经费必须专项用于移民项目或移民工作。非移民项目的费用一律不得在移民项目经费中列支。
第二十三条 各级新城迁建指挥部（管委会）不得占用移民项目经费和行政管理费，可从直接管理的移民基础设施项目资金中，按1％的比例提取工作补助经费，用于办公、会议、差旅、邮电、交通、设备购置和聘用人员的工资等支出。其中固定资产的购置必须逐级报市移民主管部门
批准。
第二十四条 各级移民主管部门（机构）和移民迁建单位应建立健全移民资金的财务核算制度。其财务管理及会计核算，必须按财政部制定的三峡工程库区移民资金会计制度和国务院三建委移民开发局制定的三峡工程库区移民财务管理及经费管理办法执行。
第二十五条 县级以上移民主管部门应设置总会计师，负责组织和领导移民资金的财务管理、成本管理、预算管理、会计管理、会计核算和会计监督工作。
乡镇移民机构的主管会计应由上一级移民主管部门委派。
第二十六条 各级人民政府分管移民工作的领导、各级移民主管部门（机构）和各新城迁建指挥部（管委会）的领导及其工作人员，有《重庆市国家公务员任职回避与公务回避实施办法》第六条所列亲属关系之一的，必须按下列规定回避：
（一）不得有直接上下级领导关系；
（二）不得在同一单位担任直接隶属于同一领导的职务；
（三）不得在一方担任领导职务的单位从事监察、审计、人事、财务等工作。
第二十七条 各级移民主管部门（机构）、迁建单位应及时、准确、完整地编制财务会计报表，认真审核、汇总财务报表，按时间、按要求、保证质量及时上报财务报表。各经办银行应认真审核年度决算并办理签证手续。
第二十八条 各级移民主管部门（机构）应严格按照国家有关规定和要求，及时、准确、全面地搜集、整理和上报移民经费使用、管理的统计资料，建立完善的统计资料档案，并按时、按质报送统计报表。

第四章 监督检查
第二十九条 库区各级人民政府及其移民主管部门（机构）应加强对移民资金的管理和监督。各区县（自治县、市）人民政府应制定移民资金管理责任制的实施方案，并组织实施。
第三十条 各级审计部门应加强对移民资金管理和使用情况的审计监督，审计部门、移民部门的内部审计机构应对大型移民工程项目和重点移民项目有计划地安排实施审计。必要时可委托中介组织进行。
各级移民主管部门（机构）的主要负责人必须实行任期经济责任审计，具体办法按国家有关规定执行。
第三十一条 各级监察部门应加强对移民资金的监督检查，对本行政区移民资金的管理和使用进行事前、事中、事后监督；对群众反映强烈的问题应进行重点监督，对重点移民项目进行重点跟踪监督。应设立投诉电话，受理群众举报；对移民资金管理和使用中的违法违纪案件必须及时
严肃查处。
市监察部门可以向市移民主管部门派驻监察专员，负责对全市移民资金和移民工程质量管理的监督检查和违法违纪案件的查处。
第三十二条 市移民主管部门负责组织对库区各级政府移民投资计划执行的监督、财务检查和审计整改监督，协调审计、监察部门及经办银行对资金使用情况的监督工作。库区各级人民政府、移民主管部门（机构）应积极配合，如实提供有关资料。
第三十三条 各级移民主管部门应建立健全内部审计机构和监察机构，充实内部审计人员和监察人员，加强对移民资金管理和使用的内部审计和监督检查，接受审计、监察部门的指导和监督，配合审计、监察部门的审计及监督检查工作。
第三十四条 各级审计部门、监察部门和移民系统内部的审计、监察机构应建立情况通报制度、材料交换制度和联合检查制度。
第三十五条 各级移民主管部门（机构）应定期向本级人民政府和上级主管部门报告移民投资计划的执行情况、资金拨付和使用情况，对移民资金管理和使用中发生的重大问题应及时报告。

第五章 法律责任
第三十六条 违反移民资金计划管理和专户储存规定，有下列行为之一的，由主管部门或监察部门责令限期改正，对直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员给予警告、记过、记大过的行政处分；造成严重后果的，给予降级、撤职、开除的行政处分：
（一）擅自调整年度移民投资计划的；
（二）不按年度移民投资计划和投资包干合同拨付移民资金的（第十九条规定的情形除外）；
（三）将移民资金存入非移民资金专用帐户的；
（四）将移民资金转为帐外资金、预算外资金，或设置帐外帐的；
（五）违反移民资金计划管理和专户储存的其他行为。
第三十七条违反移民资金专款专用规定，有下列行为之一的，由主管部门或监察部门责令限期改正，对直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员给予警告、记过、记大过的行政处分；造成严重后果的，给予降级、撤职、开除的行政处分；构成犯罪的，由司法机关依法追究刑事责任；
（一）将移民资金拨付给非移民项目、非移民单位或个人的；
（二）用移民资金进行担保、放贷、偿还债务的；
（三）在移民包干经费中列支非移民项目经费的；
（四）用移民项目资金支付各种赞助、捐赠、摊派和罚款的；
（五）用移民资金为移民机构经商或兴办经济实体的；
（六）违反移民资金专款专用的其他行为。
第三十八条 贪污、挪用、挤占移民资金，以及因失职、渎职而给移民资金造成损失的，由主管部门或监察部门对责任人员给予记过直至开除的行政处分；构成犯罪的，由司法机关依法追究刑事责任。
第三十九条 有本办法第三十六条、第三十七条和第三十八条各项行为，造成移民资金流失的，应依法全额追回；造成移民资金损失的，应依法赔偿；有违法所得的，依法予以没收。

第六章 附则
第四十条 移民迁建单位补偿安置后遗留的固定资产由移民主管部门负责处置，所产生的收益纳入移民项目资金进行管理和使用。无偿支援移民的资金参照移民资金进行管理。
第四十一条 移民工程项目的管理按国家有关规定执行。
第四十二条 市移民局可以根据本办法制定移民资金管理的具体实施办法。
市监察局可以根据本办法制定对违反移民资金管理行为的具体行政处分规定。
第四十三条 本办法自发布之日起施行。



2000年3月1日
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