石家庄市散装水泥管理办法
河北省石家庄市人民政府
石家庄市散装水泥管理办法
（2002年10月25日市人民政府令第126号发布，2005年1月27日经市政府研究修订，2005年2月1日市人民政府令第142号发布施行）
第一条 促进水泥生产、流通、使用领域经济增长方式转变保证建设工程质量，提高社会效益和经济效益，节约能源，或少环境污染，根据《河北省散装水泥管理办法》及有关规定，结合本市实际，制定本办法。
第二条 市行政区域内散装水泥的管理，适用本办法。
第三条 发展和改革行政主管部门是全市散装水泥的主管部门，市散装水泥办公室为日常管理机构，负责本行政区内散装水泥行政管理的具体工作。
规划、建设、财政、审计、物价、交通、环境保护、中小企业、商务、公安交通管理等部门按照各自职责，做好散装水泥的生产、销售、运输和使用工作。
第四条 散装水泥的管理，应当坚持国家“限制袋装，鼓励散装”的原则，以市场为导向，全面规划，统一管理，提高水泥散装率，发展预拌混凝土和预拌砂浆。
第五条 装水泥管理机构应当开展散装水泥管理的宣传，信息交流、专业培训，开展新技术、新工艺、新设备的研制开发和推广使用工作，并为生产、使用散装水泥的单位和个人在生产、运输、储存、使用等方面提供信息咨询和技术服务。
第六条 泥生产企业销售袋装水泥(包括纸袋、复膜塑编袋、复合袋等，下同)，按照每吨一元的标准缴纳散装水泥专项资金；使用袋装水泥的单位按照每吨三元的标准缴纳散装水泥专项资金。
第七条 装水泥专项资金由散装水泥管理机构负责征收，也可由散装水泥管理机构委托其他单位代征。
第八条 国家规定外，任何部门和单位不得擅自改变散装水泥专项资金征收对象，扩大征收范围，提高征收标准或减免散装水泥专项资金。
第九条 装水泥专项资金属于政府性基金，全额缴入同级财政部门，散装水泥管理机构经费由同级财政部门按照编制从正常预算经费中核拨，实行“收支两条线”管理，任何单位和个人不得截留或者挪用。专项资金按下列范围使用：
(一)新建、改建和扩建散装水泥、预拌混凝土、预拌砂浆专用设施；
(二)购置和维修散装水泥、预拌混凝土、预拌砂浆设备；
(三)散装水泥、预拌混凝土、预拌砂浆建设项目贷款贴息；
(四)散装水泥、预拌混凝土、预拌砂浆科研、新技术开发、示范与推广；
(五)散装水泥宣传；
(六)代征手续费；
(七)经同级财政部门批准与发展散装水泥有关的其他支出。
第十条 收专项资金应使用省财政部门统一印制的政府性基金专用票据，专项资金纳入财政预算内管理。
第十一条 市散装水泥管理机构批准设立的县级散装水泥管理机构负责其辖区内散装水泥的管理，其征收专项资金的百分之五十上缴市级财政，统筹用于全市重点散装水泥、预拌混凝土和预拌砂浆专用设施、设备的建设和购置及上解省级财政。
第十二条 本办法实施之日起，新建、改建、扩建的水泥生产企业，应当按散装水泥百分之七十以上发放能力的要求进行设计和同步建设。
原有的水泥生产企业，应当在散装水泥管理机构规定的期限内，使其散装水泥年发放能力达到国家规定的标准。
第十三条 泥经销单位及个人，应按散装水泥管理机构规定的比例经销散装水泥。
第十四条 散装水泥管理机构对散装水泥、预拌混凝土和预拌砂浆实行备案管理。
第十五条 装水泥、预拌混凝土和预拌砂浆专用车辆在运输过程中，不得洒漏。
第十六条 装水泥、预拌混凝土和预拌砂浆专用车辆经过城市道路时，公安交通管理部门应当给予方便。经市交通行政主管部门报请省政府有关部门审定，减半征收养路费。
散装水泥、预混凝土和预拌砂浆专用车辆市散装水泥管理机构备案后，统一办理市城区通行和养路费减征手续。
第十七条 拌混凝土生产企业、预拌砂浆生产企业、大中型水泥制品生产企业和市城区以及高装新技术产业开发区内的建设单位必须全部使用散装水泥。小型水泥制品生产企业，散装水泥使用率必须达到百分之八十以上。
第十八条 级政府所在城镇范围内，水泥使用量五十吨以上的建筑工程，散装水泥使用率必须达到百分之八十以上。
第十九条 城区以及高新技术产业开发区，从事建设工程施工作业的，不准现场搅拌，必须使用预拌混凝土和预拌砂浆。特殊情况须经市建设行政主管部门批准。
第二十条 工单位应当配置或租用与其施工能力相适应的散装水泥储存设施，确保散装水泥使用率达到要求。
第二十一条 装水泥生产、运输和施工单位，应保证装卸、运输、储存、使用设施、设备符合环境保护标准。
第二十二条 区二环路以内的混凝土搅拌站、散装水泥中转库、水泥制品生产企业应按规划逐步迁出市区。
第二十三条 装水泥管理机构在投资项目集中办理中心开设办公窗口，对使用袋装水泥的单位按规定标准征收专项资金，并核定散装水泥或预拌混凝土、预拌砂浆使用计划。
未进入投资项目集中办理中心，使用袋装水泥的工程项目，由市散装水泥管理机构直接征收专项资金。
第二十四条 留、挪用散装水泥专项资金的，由财政、审计部门会同发展和改革行政主管部门依法予以处理；涉嫌犯罪的，移送司法机关处理。
超标准、超范围征收散装水泥专项资金的，由财政、物价部门会同发展和改革行政主管部门依法予以处理。
第二十五条 下列行为之一的，由市发展和改革行政主管部门或委托散装水泥管理机构实施处罚：
违反本办法第六条，单位在经营活动中拒缴或少缴专项资金的，限期改正，逾期不改正的，处以一千元以上一万元以下罚款；单位在非经营活动中拒缴或者少缴专项资金的，责令改正，愈期不改正的，处以五百元以上一千元以下罚款。
违反本办法第十七条、第十八条，未按规定比例使用散装水泥的，对其低于规定比例的数量每吨处以三十元的罚款，但最高不超过三万元。
第二十六条 反本办法第十五条、第二十一条规定，造成环境污染的，根据不同情况，分别由城市管理、公安交通、环境保护等部门，按照相关法律、法规和规章予以处罚。
第二十七条 反本办法第十九条规定的，由建设行政主管部门予以处罚。
第二十八条 绝、阻碍发展和改革行政主管部门或散装水泥管理机构工作人员依法执行职务的，由散装水泥管理机构所在地公安机关依照《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚条例》的规定予以处罚；涉嫌犯罪的，移送司法机关处理。
第二十九条 办法自二○○二年十二月十五日起施行。
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
