📚 Edexcel Pre-U Politics: Essay Writing Framework & Model Answers | Edexcel Pre-U 政治：论文写作框架与范文
Success in Edexcel Pre-U Politics hinges on your ability to construct a clear, analytical and evaluative essay under timed conditions. This guide breaks down an effective writing framework, integrates assessment objectives, and provides full model answers that illustrate exactly how to move from a question prompt to a high-scoring response. Mastering this structure will transform your revision and examination performance.
在 Edexcel Pre-U 政治考试中取得成功，关键在于能够在限时条件下写出清晰、分析性强且有评价深度的论文。本指南将分解一套高效的写作框架，融合评估目标，并提供完整的范文，具体展示如何从题目出发，构建高分答案。掌握这一结构将彻底改变你的复习效果和考试成绩。
1. Introduction to the Pre-U Politics Essay | 认识 Pre-U 政治论文
The Pre-U Politics essay is not a simple knowledge dump. It tests your ability to synthesise facts, construct sustained arguments, and evaluate competing viewpoints with precision. Each 45-mark essay expects you to demonstrate depth of understanding across UK politics, political ideas, or comparative government, while maintaining a sharp focus on the question’s command words such as ‘evaluate’, ‘assess’, or ‘to what extent’.
Pre-U 政治论文绝非简单的知识堆砌。它考察的是你综合事实、构建连贯论证以及精准评价对立观点的能力。每一道 45 分的论文题都要求你在英国政治、政治思想或比较政府等领域展示深度理解，同时紧扣题目中的指令词，如 “评价”、“评估” 或 “在多大程度上”。
The typical timing is 45 minutes per essay, meaning you must plan, write and review efficiently. A robust framework saves precious minutes and ensures you never lose sight of the argument. This article first establishes how to meet the assessment objectives, then walks through a paragraph-by-paragraph structure, and finally applies it to real questions.
每篇论文通常限时 45 分钟，这意味着你必须高效地规划、写作和检查。一个牢固的框架能节省宝贵的时间，并确保你始终不偏离论点。本文首先阐明如何满足评估目标，然后逐步讲解段落结构，最后将其应用到真实考题中。
2. Understanding the Assessment Objectives | 理解评估目标
AO1: Knowledge and Understanding. You need to recall and explain key political concepts, institutions, processes and theories. This includes naming relevant thinkers, quoting statistics where appropriate, and describing events accurately. However, AO1 alone will not carry you beyond a basic pass. It is the foundation upon which you build analysis.
AO1：知识与理解。 你需要回忆并解释关键的政治概念、制度、过程与理论。这包括准确说出相关思想家的名字、适当引用统计数据以及描述事件。但单靠 AO1 无法帮你突破及格线，它只是构建分析的基础。
AO2: Analysis and Evaluation. This is the most heavily weighted objective. You must break down arguments, identify their strengths and weaknesses, weigh evidence, and form a sustained, substantiated judgement. Phrases like ‘this suggests’, ‘however, it is more significant that’, and ‘the stronger argument holds that’ signal evaluation. Do not simply describe; always ask ‘why’ and ‘to what extent’.
AO2：分析与评价。 这是权重最高的目标。你必须拆解论点，辨别其优缺点，权衡证据，并形成连贯且有依据的判断。诸如 “这表明”、“然而，更重要的是”、“更有力的论点主张” 之类的表述标志着评价。不要仅仅描述；始终追问 “为什么” 以及 “在多大程度上”。
AO3: Communication. Examiners assess clarity, structure, and the logical flow of your essay. Use paragraphs effectively, link your ideas with connective phrases, and write in a formal academic register. A well-signposted essay that uses precise political terminology will always score higher in this objective.
AO3：沟通。 考官会评估论文的清晰度、结构与逻辑连贯性。有效运用段落，使用连接词串联观点，并以正式的学术语域写作。一篇指代明确、使用精确政治术语的论文在这一目标上总能获得更高分数。
3. Deconstructing the Question | 拆解题目
Begin by underlining the command word. ‘Evaluate’ requires you to make a judgement based on criteria; ‘assess’ asks you to weigh up the importance or success of something; ‘to what extent’ demands a nuanced, measured conclusion. Never treat any question as an open invitation to write all you know about a topic.
首先划出指令词。“评价” 要求你依据标准作出判断；“评估” 要求你衡量某事的重要性或成功程度；“在多大程度上” 则需要一个细致、有分寸的结论。切勿将任何题目视为可以就某一话题倾泻所有知识的开放邀请。
Next, isolate the key concepts. For example, in ‘Evaluate the view that the UK Parliament is no longer effective at scrutinising the executive’, the core concept is ‘effectiveness of scrutiny’. You must define what effective scrutiny looks like (e.g. holding ministers to account, amending legislation, forcing policy reversals) and then test Parliament’s performance against that standard.
其次，隔离关键概念。例如，在 “评价 ‘英国议会已不再能有效审查行政机构’ 这一观点” 中，核心概念是 “审查的有效性”。你必须定义什么是有效的审查（如追究部长责任、修改法案、迫使政策逆转），然后以此为标准检验议会的表现。
Finally, identify any assumptions or parameters. If the question specifies a time period (e.g. ‘since 2010’), your examples must be drawn from that era. If it says ‘in the UK and US’, you must compare. Mapping the question’s boundaries prevents irrelevant digression.
最后，识别任何假设或限定范围。如果题目指定了时间段（如 “自 2010 年以来”），你的例子必须取自该时期。如果提及 “在英国和美国”，就必须进行比较。划定题目的边界可避免离题。
4. Planning Your Essay | 规划论文
Spend at least 5–7 minutes planning. On the exam paper, draw a quick grid or bullet list. Your plan should contain a clear thesis statement – the overriding argument that answers the question directly. For a ‘to what extent’ question, your thesis might begin: ‘While the UK Parliament retains some important scrutiny functions, its overall effectiveness has been significantly undermined by executive dominance and party discipline.’
花至少 5 至 7 分钟规划。在试卷上快速画一个网格或列出要点。你的规划必须包含一个明确的论点陈述——即直接回答问题的总体论证。对于 “在多大程度上” 类题目，你的论点可以这样开头：“尽管英国议会仍保留某些重要的审查职能，但其整体有效性已被行政主导和政党纪律严重削弱。”
Then map your main paragraphs. A balanced essay typically has three to four substantive points, with at least one counter-argument addressed. Under each point, jot down one or two key examples and the names of thinkers or institutions you will use. This skeletal plan stops you from wandering off track halfway through writing.
接着规划主要段落。一篇均衡的论文通常有三到四个实质要点，并至少处理一个反方论点。在每个要点下，简要记下一个或两个关键例子，以及你要引用的思想家或机构名称。这个骨架式提纲能防止你在写作中途偏离轨道。
A common pitfall is trying to include too much. Select your strongest points that allow you to demonstrate analytical range, not simply the ones with the most facts. Quality over quantity is crucial for AO2.
一个常见的误区是试图塞进太多内容。要选择那些能展现你分析广度的最强论证点，而非仅仅事实最多的点。就 AO2 而言，质量远比数量重要。
5. Crafting a Strong Introduction | 撰写有力的引言
Your introduction sets the intellectual direction. Open with one or two contextual sentences that show you understand the wider debate. For instance: ‘The balance of power between the legislature and the executive lies at the heart of democratic accountability. In the UK system of parliamentary sovereignty, the House of Commons is constitutionally tasked with scrutinising every government action.’
引言奠定你论文的智识方向。用一两个背景句开头，表明你理解更宏观的辩论。例如：“立法机关与行政机关之间的权力平衡是民主问责制的核心。在以议会主权为特征的英国体制中，下议院依据宪法负有审查政府每一行动之责。”
Immediately after the context, present your thesis statement – a single clear sentence that answers the question. Then provide a brief ‘road map’ outlining the factors or themes your paragraphs will explore. Avoid lengthy definitions here; save precise definitions for your main body where they earn AO1 marks.
背景介绍之后，立刻给出你的论点陈述——一个清晰明了、直接回答问题的单句。然后提供一份简短的 “路线图”，概述你将探讨的因素或主题。不要在引言部分做冗长的定义；将精确定义留到正文部分，在那里它们可以挣得 AO1 分数。
A model introduction for the question on parliamentary scrutiny might read: ‘Parliament’s scrutiny role operates through an interlocking network of select committees, debates, and parliamentary questions. This essay will argue that while these mechanisms remain symbolically significant and occasionally succeed in amending legislation, their substantive impact has been hollowed out by a strong executive and rigid party lines. The discussion will first assess the work of select committees, then consider floor debates, and finally evaluate the constraint of party loyalty.’
关于议会审查问题的示范引言可以这样写：“议会的审查职能通过特别委员会、辩论和议会质询等相互关联的网络运作。本文认为，尽管这些机制仍具有象征意义且偶尔能成功修改立法，但它们的实质性影响已被强大的行政权和严格的政党阵线掏空。讨论将首先评估特别委员会的工作，接着考察全会辩论，最后评价政党忠诚所带来的限制。”
6. Body Paragraph Framework: PEEL | 主体段落框架：PEEL
Every paragraph should follow the PEEL structure: Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link. Start with a clear topic sentence (Point) that relates directly to your thesis. For example: ‘Select committees have been praised as the most potent tool of backbench scrutiny, yet their lack of formal sanctions limits their bite.’
每个段落都应遵循 PEEL 结构：论点、证据、解释、衔接。以一个与你的论点直接相关的清晰主题句（论点）开头。例如：“特别委员会被誉后座议员进行审查的最有力工具，然而它们缺乏正式制裁手段，这限制了其威慑力。”
Next, provide precise Evidence. Name a specific committee, report, or incident: ‘For instance, the Treasury Select Committee’s 2012 inquiry into the LIBOR scandal forced senior bankers to testify publicly, but the government accepted only two of its ten recommendations.’ Such specificity demonstrates strong AO1.
接下来，提供精确的证据。说出具体的委员会名称、报告或事件：“例如，财政特别委员会 2012 年对 LIBOR 丑闻的调查迫使资深银行家公开作证，但政府仅接受了其十项建议中的两项。” 这样的具体性展示了扎实的 AO1。
Then Explain why this evidence matters. This is where you analyse: ‘This reveals a fundamental asymmetry: committees can expose failures and generate negative publicity, but without the power to compel policy change, their influence remains largely rhetorical. The government’s control of the legislative timetable further neuters committee proposals.’
然后解释这项证据为何重要。这就是分析的部分：“这揭示了一个根本性的不对称：委员会可以揭露失误并制造负面舆论，但在没有强制改变政策权力的情况下，其影响力很大程度上仍停留在言辞层面。政府对立法时间表的控制进一步钝化了委员会的提案。”
Finally, Link back to the question or forward to the next idea: ‘Therefore, while select committees embody an important principle of accountability, their practical effectiveness must be judged as limited – an argument that becomes even clearer when examining the ritualistic nature of Prime Minister’s Questions.’
最后，回扣题目或过渡到下一个观点：“因此，尽管特别委员会体现了问责的重要原则，但其实际有效性必须被认定为有限——当审视首相问答的仪式性本质时，这一论点会变得更加清晰。”
7. Using Evidence and Examples | 运用论据与案例
Evidence in Pre-U Politics comes in multiple forms: constitutional conventions, statute law, case law, political events, electoral statistics, and quotations from political thinkers. A paragraph on the UK constitution’s flexibility might cite the rapid passage of the Coronavirus Act 2020, while also referencing A.V. Dicey’s concept of parliamentary sovereignty to show theoretical depth.
Pre-U 政治中的证据有多种形式：宪法惯例、成文法、判例法、政治事件、选举数据以及政治思想家的引文。一个讨论英国宪法灵活性的段落可以引用《2020 年新冠病毒法案》的快速通过，同时援引 A.V. 戴西的议会主权概念，以展现理论深度。
Integrate examples, don’t just list them. Rather than writing ‘There have been many backbench rebellions, such as over the Iraq War, tuition fees, and Brexit,’ a high-scoring response would say: ‘Parliamentary rebellions remain the exception, not the rule. Although the 2019 rebellion over a no-deal Brexit saw 21 Conservative MPs defy the whip, the government’s ability to later secure the December 2019 general election victory demonstrated that party unity, even when fractured, typically reasserts itself under electoral imperatives.’
融入例子，不要只是罗列它们。与其写 “有许多后座叛乱，如伊拉克战争、大学学费和脱欧”，高分答案会这样写：“议会叛乱仍是例外而非常态。尽管 2019 年针对无协议脱欧的叛乱导致 21 名保守党议员违抗党鞭，但政府随后在 2019 年 12 月大选中获胜的能力表明，政党团结即使暂时破裂，在选举需求下通常也会重新确立。”
For comparative politics, anchor your evidence in both systems. When discussing judicial review, contrast the UK Supreme Court’s declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s power of constitutional strike-down in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Such comparisons directly fulfil the synoptic demands of the syllabus.
在进行比较政治时，要将证据扎根于两种政体中。在讨论司法审查时，可将英国最高法院根据《1998 年人权法案》作出的不相容宣告，与美国最高法院在马伯里诉麦迪逊案（1803 年）中确立的宪法废止权进行对比。此类比较直接满足了课程大纲的综合要求。
8. Analytical and Evaluative Writing | 分析与评价性写作
Analysis moves beyond ‘what happened’ to ‘why it is significant’. Use analytical verbs such as ‘demonstrates’, ‘reveals’, ‘implies’, ‘suggests’, and ‘underscores’. Avoid empty adverbs like ‘clearly’ or ‘obviously’; let the logic speak for itself. A sentence like ‘This illustrates the structural dominance of the executive’ is far stronger than ‘This shows that the executive has a lot of power’.
分析要超越 “发生了什么”，走向 “为何意义重大”。使用 “表明”、“揭示”、“暗示”、“意味着”、“突显” 等分析性动词。避免使用 “显然”、“明显” 等空洞的副词；让逻辑自身说话。“这说明了行政部门的结构性主导地位” 这样的句子，远比 “这表明行政部门拥有很多权力” 有力。
Evaluation means making comparative judgements. You might write: ‘While select committees deserve credit for exposing the Windrush scandal, the episodic nature of such scrutiny contrasts sharply with the permanent, specialised oversight provided by the U.S. Congressional committee system, which can subpoena witnesses and block presidential appointments.’ By judging one mechanism against another, you demonstrate evaluative thinking.
评价意味着作出比较性判断。你可以这样写：“尽管特别委员会因曝光 ‘疾风’ 丑闻而值得赞扬，但这种审查的偶发性与美国国会委员会体系所提供的常设性、专业化监督形成鲜明对比，后者不仅可以传唤证人，还能阻止总统任命。” 通过以一种机制评判另一种机制，你展现了评价性思维。
Always address the strongest counter-argument, not a straw man. If the question asks whether referendums enhance democracy, acknowledge the argument that the 2016 EU referendum gave voice to a disenfranchised public, and then push back by discussing the tyranny of the bare majority, the absence of deliberative quality, and the dangers of misleading campaigns. This balance nets top marks.
始终要回应最强有力的反方论点，而非稻草人谬误。如果题目问公投是否增强民主，要承认 2016 年脱欧公投让被剥夺话语权的公众发出了声音这一论点，然后从少数多数的暴政、商议质量的缺失以及误导性运动的危险等方面进行反驳。这种平衡能斩获最高分。
9. Conclusion Techniques | 结论技巧
Begin your conclusion by restating your thesis in fresh language – do not simply copy the introduction. Then synthesise the main points of your essay into a concise ‘mini-argument’ that answers the question directly. A formula such as ‘Overall, while X demonstrates some effectiveness, the combined weight of Y and Z leads to the conclusion that…’ works reliably.
开头的结论要用全新的语言重申你的论点——不要只是照抄引言。然后将全文的主要观点综合成一个直接回答问题的、简洁的 “微型论证”。一个可靠的公式是：“总体而言，尽管 X 显示出一定的有效性，但 Y 与 Z 加总的权重让人得出如下结论……”
Make a definitive, substantiated judgement. The examiner wants to see where you stand. For the scrutiny essay, you might conclude: ‘Parliament remains a theater of accountability rather than an engine of control. In an age of majority governments and a politicised appointments system, effective scrutiny has migrated out of the chamber to quangos and the media, a shift that fundamentally downgrades the traditional Westminster model.’
给出一个确定且有依据的判断。考官希望看到你的立场。对于审查问题的论文，你可以这样作结：“议会已成为问责的剧场而非控制的引擎。在多数政府和政治化任命制度的时代，有效审查已从议事厅转移至半官方机构和媒体，这一转变从根本上贬抑了传统的威斯敏斯特模式。”
Never introduce new evidence in your conclusion. If a compelling new example suddenly occurs to you, go back and insert it into the relevant body paragraph. Keep the conclusion tight, at most five to seven sentences, and end with a forward-looking thought if it adds weight, such as ‘Without meaningful constitutional reform, this democratic deficit is likely to grow.’
绝不要在结论中引入新的证据。如果突然想起一个有力的新案例，回到正文相关段落并将其插入。结论要简短，最多五至七句话；如果可使结论更有分量，可以以一个前瞻性的思考收尾，如：“若无有意义的宪制改革，这一民主赤字很可能会进一步扩大。”
10. Common Mistakes to Avoid | 常见错误避免
Descriptive narratives. Telling the story of how a bill becomes law without tying it to an evaluative criterion wastes words. Every sentence must serve your argument. If you catch yourself writing ‘First the bill goes through the first reading, then the second reading…’, stop and reorient towards analysis.
描述性叙事。 脱离评价标准，讲述一部法案如何成为法律的故事是在浪费笔墨。每一个句子都必须服务于你的论证。如果你发现自己正在写 “首先法案进行一读，然后二读……”，立即打住，转向分析。
Unsupported generalisation. Phrases like ‘Many voters feel disillusioned’ or ‘Parliament has been significantly weakened’ without concrete evidence earn no AO1 credit. Always anchor claims with a statistic, named entity, or academic source.
无依据的泛泛而谈。 “许多选民感到幻灭” 或 “议会已被严重削弱” 等表述若无具体证据，无法赢得 AO1 分数。始终用统计数据、具名实体或学术来源来支撑论点。
Ignoring the counter-argument. A one-sided essay rarely achieves top bands. Even if you firmly believe one view is correct, dedicate at least one full paragraph to the opposing perspective and explain why it is ultimately less convincing. This is the hallmark of a mature political judgement.
忽视反方论点。 单方面的论文极少能进入最高评分等级。即使你坚信一种观点正确，也要至少用一整段来论述对立观点，并解释它为何最终不那么令人信服。这是成熟政治判断的标志。
Poor time management. Some candidates write an outstanding first two paragraphs and then run out of time. Practise writing timed essays and adhering to a strict plan to ensure every part of your argument receives adequate coverage.
时间管理不善。 有些考生能写出极为出色的前两段，随后却时间耗尽。应练习限时写作，并严格遵循规划，以确保论证的每一部分都获得充分覆盖。
11. Model Essay Breakdown: UK Politics | 范文解析：英国政治
Below is a model introduction and one body paragraph for the question: “Evaluate the extent to which the UK parliament remains an effective check on the executive.” After each English segment, the Chinese commentary explains how it meets the framework.
以下是为 “评价英国议会在多大程度上仍是约束行政部门的有效机构” 这一问题撰写的示范引言与一个主体段落。每段英文后，中文评注解释了它如何契合框架。
Model Introduction: “The constitutional orthodoxy holds that Parliament serves as the custodian of executive accountability, scrutinising ministers and holding the government to account between elections. In practice, however, a disciplined majority in the Commons, combined with the prerogatives of the executive, raises serious questions about the depth of this check. This essays argues that while select committees and urgent questions provide a platform for opposition, the overall effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny has been critically eroded by executive dominance, making it a predominantly passive observer except during moments of internal party crisis.”
示范引言： “宪法正统观念认为，议会是行政问责的守护者，在选举间歇期审查大臣并追究政府责任。然而在实践中，下议院一个纪律严明的多数党，加上行政特权，对该约束力的深度提出了严重质疑。本文主张，尽管特别委员会和紧急质询为反对派提供了平台，但议会审查的整体有效性已被行政主导严重侵蚀，使其在政党内部危机时刻之外，主要充当被动观察者。”
解说： 这个引言包含了背景句、明确的论点陈述（认为审查已被严重侵蚀）和路线图（提及特别委员会、党的纪律），直接回应了 AO2 与 AO3。
解说： This introduction contains contextual sentences, a clear thesis statement (scrutiny has been critically eroded), and a road map (references to select committees, party discipline), directly addressing AO2 and AO3.
Model Body Paragraph (PEEL): “The most frequently cited instrument of scrutiny is the departmental select committee. (Point) The Home Affairs Committee’s 2018 inquiry into the Windrush scandal forced the then Home Secretary to apologise and prompted a wholesale review of immigration enforcement. (Evidence) Yet, the committee could only recommend changes; it possessed no power to reverse deportations or reallocate resources. The government accepted fewer than half of the inquiry’s recommendations, and implementation lagged for years. (Explanation) This exposes the committee’s inherent limitation: it influences through publicity, not authority. In contrast to its US counterpart, which can subpoena documents and block appointments, the UK committee’s armoury is dramatically lighter. (Link) Thus, while a valuable deliberative space, it ultimately falls short of constituting an ‘effective check’ – a point sharpened by examining the even weaker scrutiny exercised in the legislative process itself.”
示范主体段落（PEEL）： “最常被引用的审查工具是部门特别委员会。（论点）内政事务委员会 2018 年对 ‘疾风’ 丑闻的调查迫使时任内政大臣道歉，并推动对移民执法进行了全面检讨。（证据）然而，该委员会只能建议改变；它无权取消驱逐出境或重新分配资源。政府接受了不到一半的调查建议，且落实拖延数年。（解释）这暴露了委员会的内在局限：它通过舆论而非权力施加影响。与可传唤文件、阻止任命的美国国会委员会相比，英国委员会的武器库要轻量得多。（衔接）因此，尽管它是一个有价值的商议空间，但终究算不上 ‘有效约束’——这一点在检视立法过程中那更为薄弱的审查机制时会愈发鲜明。”
解说： 该段落以清晰的主题句开头，提供了具体的案例证据，通过比较分析其权力不足进行解释，并链接回题目，完美诠释了 PEEL 与 AO2。
解说： The paragraph opens with a clear topic sentence, provides concrete case evidence, explains through comparative analysis of its lack of power, and links back to the question, a perfect demonstration of PEEL and AO2.
12. Model Essay Breakdown: Comparative Politics | 范文解析：比较政治
For the comparative essay, consider the question: “Compare and contrast the role of the judiciary in protecting rights in the UK and the US.” The following skeleton paragraph demonstrates how to weave two systems together evaluatively.
对于比较论文，请思考题目：“比较并对比英国与美国司法机构在保护权利方面的作用。” 以下骨架段落示范如何评价性地将两种政体编织在一起。
Model Paragraph: “The foundational structures of judicial rights protection differ fundamentally between the two nations. (Point) In the UK, under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Supreme Court may issue a declaration of incompatibility, leaving remedies to Parliament. In contrast, the US Supreme Court, empowered by Marbury v. Madison (1803), can strike down primary legislation as unconstitutional. (Evidence) The UK approach prioritises parliamentary sovereignty and political resolution; the US model enshrines judicial supremacy. (Explanation) This institutional contrast produces divergent outcomes: UK declarations have at times galvanised legislative reform, such as the amendment of the Counter-Terrorism Act following A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, yet they remain advisory. Meanwhile, US decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) directly altered the legal landscape nationwide. (Link/Evaluation) It would be simplistic, however, to label the UK system as weaker: its reliance on a rights-respecting political culture can sometimes achieve rights protection with greater democratic legitimacy, whereas the US system courts accusations of ‘judicial activism’ and democratic deficit. Thus, the evaluation hinges on whether one values democratic responsiveness or legal certainty.”
示范段落： “两国司法权利保护的根本结构截然不同。（论点）在英国，依据 1998 年《人权法案》，最高法院可发布不相容宣告，将补救措施留给议会。相反，美国最高法院凭借马伯里诉麦迪逊案（1803 年）确立的司法审查权，可以直接推翻违宪的基本立法。（证据）英国模式优先考虑议会主权和政治解决；美国模式则确立司法至上。（解释）这种制度差异产生了不同结果：英国的不相容宣告有时激发了立法改革，例如 A 诉内政部国务大臣案后对《反恐法》的修正，但它们始终仅是建议。而美国诸如奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案（2015 年）等判决，直接在全国范围内改变了法律格局。（衔接/评价）然而，若简单将英国体制标为较弱便是片面的：它对尊重权利的政治文化的依赖，有时能以更大的民主合法性实现权利保护，而美国体制则常被指摘为 “司法能动主义” 与民主赤字。因此，评价取决于人们更重视民主回应性还是法律的确定性。”
Published by TutorHao | Pre-U 政治 Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导