机构协调是美国行政法处理行政管辖碎片化、重叠化问题,增强行政效能的重要内部行政法举措.美国机构协调的制度体系主要包括国会和总统对机构协调的外部控制措施,行政机构自主开展的协调规则制定和协调裁决等要素.非正式协调、信息科技等对美国机构协调也具有重要影响.除遵守普通行政程序外,美国机构协调还在意见咨询、行政公开和说明理由方面具有特殊的程序设计.美国机构协调的司法审查主要从四方面展开,即协调组织是否属于行政机关、机构协调是否违反"单方接触"、协调制定的行政规范是否具有效力和机构协调执法的合法性要求.借鉴美国经验,结合我国实际,宜从理论内化、规则创制、程序约束与法院审查等方面入手,建立健全我国行政法上的机构协调制度.
我国政务数据共享长期面临政务部门不愿、不会、不便、不敢共享之困境.作为应急工具,健康码借由政治压力,依托工作专班和大数据管理机构,利用互联网企业力量,通过授权决定,一定程度上实现了突破.但这种突破仍有局限,因为在后疫情时代,政治压力难以持续,专责机构面临挑战,政企合作有待转型,授权规范仍需细化.要真正实现政务数据共享,有赖于来自政务部门内部和外部社会公众的压力和促动.而要降低政务部门共享数据的法律风险,降低民众对政务数据共享的担忧,就需明确共享的法治边界.现有制度和实践存在三大问题:原则上,笼统要求"以共享为原则,不共享为例外"与个人信息保护法制的基本逻辑相抵触;规则上,无条件共享、有条件共享和不予共享的数据分类不准确,以数据定共享的做法不合理,共享方式分类不适当;程序上,共享行为公开和告知的法定要求未落实.这些问题需以原则修正、规则重塑和程序完善的方式来解决.
技术特征划分的不确定性在一定程度上加剧了专利确权诉讼和侵权纠纷的频发以及结果的频繁"反转".从表面上看,技术特征的划分难以通过形式理性加以规范;在理论层面上,技术特征划分涉及事实与价值二分的理论问题.要解决技术特征划分的问题,应在事实与价值之间建立沟通机制,而实践理性正是沟通事实与价值的理论,建立在实践理性的基础之上,将技术特征划分中的事实部分与价值部分利用主客观尺度加以区分.在符合技术特征划分定义的规范下,存在多种技术特征的划分方式,决定最终划分方式的是其背后的实践理由.在具体情境之下,对基于实践理由的制度利益进行衡量,重构司法推理三段论,从而在技术特征划分中建立起技术事实到价值判断的理性化和正当化路径.
关于"数据权益的刑法保护"问题,在理论层面上,可从"刑法解释论"和"刑法立法论"两种路径进行探讨."刑法解释论"探讨路径以现行《刑法》罪名体系为出发点,主要任务是揭示哪些罪名的犯罪构成之设置是以"数据权益"为规范保护目的;"刑法立法论"探讨路径是在刑法立法层面上探讨立法者为在刑法政策上实现数据权益的刑法保护这一目的,动用刑罚禁止何种行为类型才具正当性的问题.然而,两种探讨路径都将依赖于"数据权益"的内涵确定以及法益格的认定问题,换言之,是刑法法益理论在数据权益刑法保护问题上的具体运用.《民法典》第127条并非是关于数据的确权性规定,且在民法理论界关于数据权益的法律属性存在诸多争议的状况下,"数据权益"内涵不明、法律属性不清导致其并不具备作为刑法保护客体的"法益"格.当前刑法理论界存在的关于"数据权益"的刑法类法益保护模式探讨路径,是对刑法法益保护方式的误读,并未触及"数据权益刑法保护"之规范层面问题的实质."数据安全"法益观的探讨路径则不仅混淆了现象层面与规范层面上的"数据犯罪"概念的界分,也由于没有论证"数据安全"如何能够构成刑法的保护法益,而导致结论过于武断.在理论探讨上,应该明确作为行为客体的物理层面上的"数据"概念与作为保护客体的法益层面上的"数据权益"概念之间的区别,据此明确"数据权益的刑法保护"在规范层面上是否构成新问题.
我国《民法典》正式将商业秘密列入了知识产权的客体,并冠以专有的权利之名,体现了商业秘密权利化的趋势.商业秘密走向财产权保护模式不仅是基于《民法典》的规定,更在于财产权保护模式的优势.作为一种结构化的认知图式,财产权保护模式能够更好地平衡商业秘密保护和公共领域之间的关系,也更契合商业秘密保护的现实需求.在明确了这一前提的基础上,目前《反不正当竞争法》中关于侵犯商业秘密的相关规定与专有权的属性存在龃龉,不可不察.对侵犯商业秘密的手段要求具有不正当性和恶意第三人视为侵犯商业秘密的规定实际上并不符合专有权的逻辑,在实践中已被忽略和替代.对此,应当沿着专有权的观念对侵犯商业秘密行为的相关规则进行建构.具体表现为将侵犯商业秘密的行为规定为未经商业秘密权利人的同意,获取、披露、使用、许可他人使用商业秘密.用共同侵权的规则取代恶意第三人侵犯商业秘密的规则,同时建构善意获取人的相关制度.除此之外,应当明确侵犯商业秘密行为主观要件为过错,并且构建相应的限制条款.这既符合商业秘密作为一种专有权的权利属性,也有利于加强商业秘密的保护.
相较立宪君主制时期的宪法,德国基本法确立了人民主权原理,重构了国家与人民之间的关系.全面保留理论立基于这一宪法结构的变迁,主张因人民缔造宪法并分配国家权力,议会享有至高的优越地位,行政权全面依赖立法权.因此,要求法律保留扩展至特别权力关系领域与给付行政领域,并要求授权法具有明确性与可预见性.该理论将议会民主高扬到极致,因而遭受功能主义分权理论与实质法治国理论的抨击,但其民主性要素被重要性理论吸收进而发挥影响力,在德国法律保留理论的脉络中起到了承继作用.
期待可能性论与预防主义刑罚观是两个不同范畴、不同功能的刑法理论,二者出现了结合的态势.积极预防刑罚观导致刑法过度化问题,"立法要扩张,司法要谦抑",需要运用责任论加以限制.责任理论也朝着机能化方向发展.期待可能性是现代责任论的核心.机能责任论作为一种升级版的规范责任论,在其理论框架中,期待可能性概念的地位虽然受到了一定限制,但并没有被完全否定,而是作为决定行为人对法律态度的一个根据被提出来.期待可能性依然具有刑法合理评价的价值,积极的一般预防主义本身也不排斥期待可能性,相反,应借助期待可能性论纠正一般预防观在实践中扩大打击面的弊端.我国立法规定为运用期待可能性论宽恕犯罪人提供了必要的空间,但现行教科书将期待不可能性作为无罪过事件并不科学.只有在刑事责任范畴中确定期待可能性论,才可以有效维持期待可能性论的两种评价功能.对网信犯罪的处理,可以进一步验证该理论的合理性.
刑事涉财产执行程序因采取移送执行模式而被误认为不存在申请执行人,使得刑事涉财产执行程序及其衍生的案外人权益救济程序过分依赖执行法院的职权主义.在刑事附带民事诉讼裁判、追缴或责令退赔违法所得并返还被害人判项、责令被免予刑事处罚的被告人赔偿被害人损失判项的执行程序中,案外人权益救济程序原则上应以被害人为申请执行人,并参照适用民事强制执行程序中的案外人权益救济制度.其他刑事涉财产执行程序应以检察机关为申请执行人.除非出现被执行人逃避执行或者案外人对执行标的提出排除执行请求等特殊情形,作为申请执行人的检察机关通常无须现实参加执行程序.
为助推《民法典》新增的自助行为的适用,亟须从解释论探讨,并考察其实践适用.自助行为本质为私力救济,为保护情况紧迫而无法及时获得公力救济的请求权而设,蕴含着民刑交叉属性.作为公力救济的例外,它仅能在特定情形下行使,以"拥有合法请求权"为前提,需满足"情况紧迫无法及时获得公力救济"以及"不实施自助行为将使权益损害难以弥补"的要件.至于自助行为应限于合理范围以及事后及时请求公力救济,则非该制度的构成要件,而是行为界限问题.自助行为既可针对相对人的财产,在特定情形下,亦可将《民法典》第1177条第1款中的"等合理措施"解释为可对相对人自由适当限制,但应契合"必要性"要求,并立即诉请公力救济.行为契合自助行为构造者,可阻却侵权违法,亦不会涉及刑事犯罪,而是出罪事由;反之,不当造成他人损害者,对相对人之损害仍应负赔偿责任,严重者,可能涉及向刑事犯罪的转化.对因自助行为引发的民刑交叉案件,应依循法秩序统一原理,严格控制入罪门槛,坚持先民后刑程序,正确界定罪与非罪.
比例原则在雇员个人信息保护中具有独特价值,可为劳雇双方利益衡量提供程序与标准,矫正雇员个人信息保护失衡状态.在构造上,四项分析要素为雇员个人信息权益所受损害、雇主手段成本、雇主经济利益与社会公共利益;审查程序为包含目的正当性、适当性、必要性与均衡性的四阶审查程序;目的正当性程序采用形式而非实质审查标准,适当性程序采用主客观结合的审查标准,必要性和均衡性程序采用客观化审查标准.在适用上,建议借助比例原则检讨《个人信息保护法》第13条第1款第2项"人力资源管理所必需"之合法性基础,并在职场监控等案件中强化劳雇双方利益衡量.
实质合并破产或重整中已生效之法人格否认裁判,能否直接用于公司法、证券法纠纷中关于法人格独立性之判断?实践中常有争议.公司法关于法人格独立性之要求,侧重于"惩罚主义"思维,旨在让滥用公司法人格和有限责任之股东直接对公司债权人承担连带清偿责任,所采测试标准主要是"过度控制""人格混同"和"资本不足";证券法侧重从"预防主义"角度,确保发行人在公开融资时,不做虚假信息披露,以便投资者能做出正确判断;在破产法上,主要是基于如何有利于增加破产财产池中的财产数额及企业之重整价值来考量法人格否认的,裁判标准更为概括和模糊,法院大多在"破产"或"重整"有需要时,从"人格高度混同""财产区分成本过高""有助于提升破产及重整效率、提高清偿之公平性"等角度,做出实质合并破产或重整裁定.因此,不同法域对法人格独立虽均有要求,但其追求的价值目标、法人格否认之主体、证据标准、责任构造要件等均存在差异.故法人格否认之裁判并不当然具有"普适效力",应明确限定破产法中法人格否认裁判的效力射程,以维护不同法域中"公司人格独立性"所意图实现的多维功能,此系"部门法尊重"之当然之理,也是"尊重部门法"在救济/司法程序中的体现.
《民法典》中的"连带责任",具有连带债务与连带民事责任两种语义;公司法规范中的"连带责任"采用了这两种语义,但还存在诸多不妥当的用法.滥用公司独立人格而突破有限责任时,股东对公司债务处于承担无限责任的状态,不宜表述为"连带责任".初始股东对其他初始股东瑕疵出资承担的"连带责任",既非连带债务又非连带民事责任,而应参照一般保证之规则.瑕疵股权让与中,仅应由股东名册记载的股东承担瑕疵补足责任,不产生"连带责任".协助抽逃出资后,在公司面前,董事、高管因违反信义义务而应赔偿,其他协助人因共同侵权而应赔偿,自然生成连带关系;在债权人面前,参与抽逃出资者各自因侵害资本充实而应承担补充赔偿责任,同样自然生成连带关系.
In addition to adhering to rule of law and focusing on taxpayer protection, the General Principles of Tax Law in the form of an independent statute aims to promote the systematization of tax rules comprehensively. Based on the core concept of tax debt and the legal relation therewith, the General Principles could encompass three parts of tax rules. The first part is the general requirements on taxation, with taxpayers’ right protection mechanisms included. The second part demonstrates the evolving process of tax liabilities, from its occurrence, adjustment to elimination. The third part concerns basic procedural policies and regulations. Thanks to the codification model of divide-first-and-then-unify, the statute of general principles needs to coordinate with the current tax system. And given the full application of administrative law in tax field, it is also necessary to be in line with the general rules of the existed administrative acts and take into consideration the possible prospect of codifying administrative laws.
The tax obligation system is the basic concept of General Provisions of Tax Law and the core category of the construction of modern tax debt law. The main content of the tax obligation system includes tax obligation, withholding obligation and the second tax obligation, the attached obligation related to tax obligation and the related procedural obligation of documentation. From the perspective of procedure, the occurrence, fulfillment, alteration and elimination of tax obligation all follow the clear provisions of tax procedure law, and there are differences due to different tax categories. In addition to the statutory explicit tax obligations, there are also specific circumstances in the tax law such as analogy application and approved collection, overpayment of tax and double taxation, as well as tax interest and late payment penalty, which need to be interpreted and dealt with in accordance with the principle of nature of transaction, clarity of elements and appropriate differentiation of burden. Our country should set up a taxpayer-centered tax obligation system in the framework of the General Provisions of Tax Law, and classify it in a concrete tax system, so as to make the tax obligation system harmonized and applicable in the general law, substantive law and procedural law.
Affective computing is an intelligent technology that uses human emotions as the object of machine learning, embodying emotion recognition and analysis functions. Affective computing is not intended to identify the information subjects and aims to output emotional information by analyzing and processing the bio-feedback information or state of the input. In order to deal with the risk of emotional manipulation brought about by the improper acquisition and utilization of emotional information, it is necessary to discuss the risk response within the framework of information privacy theory. However, the current information privacy norms have deficiencies in the risk response. Emotional information is difficult to be regarded as sensitive information because of the diversity of specific types. Bio-feedback information is difficult to be protected as biometric information because of emotional recognition rather than identification. Informed consent as the basis for information processing is also challenged due to the particularity of emotional information. Given the EU’s experience in regulating emotion recognition in AI Act Proposal, it is suggested to construct the concept of “biometric-based data” in algorithmic governance and use it as a medium to carry out hierarchical and sub-domain regulation of technical risks, so as to enhance trustworthy EAI.
In the predicament of government management caused by platform revolution, the deterioration of network information content ecology has made it a global consensus for the network platform companies to participate in governance. In order to break the traditional legal system’s obstacles to the active management of network platform companies, China and the United States have respectively promoted the joint governance of network information content ecology by establishing legal liability immunity and administrative review obligation. However, the existing legal reform can only encourage the active management of network platform companies, but cannot coordinate the different management modes of the government and network platform companies, which leads to the conflict between the government and network platform companies. In order to build a legal system to support the joint governance of network information content ecology, the law should transform the business organization mechanism of network platform companies into a formal management system through procedural rules, and adjust the legal responsibilities and obligations of the government and network platform companies, so that the two management modes can coexist.
“Anti-suit injunction” refers to a country’s Judiciary rules that a party cannot file a lawsuit in other countries or apply for the execution of other jurisdictions’ judgment or seek other relieves, otherwise punish the party. The standard essential patent dispute involves the actions to cease the acts of infringement or request to determine the global/jurisdictional FRAND rate, etc., the parties mostly file the lawsuit in multiple jurisdictions, which is easy to cause jurisdictional conflict. Our country can reasonably reform the conservatory of behavior system to decide whether to issue “anti-suit injunction”. That can be considered in three aspects: Whether the domestic litigation and foreign litigation are the same or related subject matter. Factor “likely to suffer irreparable harm” and “judgments are hard to enforce” reflect on the consideration of whether the fair development and enforcement of domestic litigation may be impeded by the execution of foreign litigation and whether the balance of equities tips in applicant’s favor. Whether the influence on international comity is intolerable by other jurisdictions.
Problems faced with the traditional rules that the illegal payment can’t be returned are as follows. The unlawful situation becomes legal. The party who acts illegally nevertheless acquires the benefit. Normative purpose will be infringed. By means of the dynamic system theory it doesn’t discover the practical solutions. Differentiating whether the restitution will result in the valid contract situation can’t explain many exceptions. The essence of proportional path is total return or no return. The game theory shows that the general preventive function should play a role in the case where the recipients haven’t act illegally or immorally. The denial of restitution in the Roman law is applied in the case of condictio ob rem which is intended to prevent the future illegal payment, thus providing us with the implication that the rule of denial of restitution should be aimed at the situation where one of the parties hasn’t performed the illegal or immoral obligation. When both parties have performed, the restitution right is supposed to be admitted. In the case of condictio ob rem if the recipient hasn’t performed, the restitution should be denied.
In practice, there is a certain conflict between administrative determination and criminal judicial determination of falsely issuing special VAT invoices cases. Some cases, which are recognized as the evasion of tax, do not constitute the crime because the deduction behavior doesn’t cause damage to national taxes. The common essence of tax violations lies in the infringement of legal interest. The evasion of tax and the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices have common legal interest of protecting the interest of national taxes benefits, but the criminal law makes a special evaluation of the illegal means of using false VAT special invoices to cause national tax losses, while in tax law, the negative evaluation of this illegal means is contained within the evasion of tax. The crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices and the evasion of tax have the same constituent elements, including the act of illegal deductions and causing the results of national tax losses. Therefore, the determination of national value-added tax losses caused by illegal deductions in administrative determination and criminal judicial determination should be consistent, which means to make substantive judgments based on the whole chain of value-added tax. So that “tax evasion punishment” and “order punishment” could be distinguished and the principle of the equivalent penalties can be achieved.
In Madison’s opinion,the virtues and defects,reason and passion in human nature are different manifestations of the same character of man,not the mixture of two contradictory qualities.His concept of human nature is empirical and universal,not abstract and singular assumptions of good and evil.This is consistent with his emphasis on external incentives on individual choice and constitutional design.Madison’s view of human nature was consistent with his republican ideology, which emphasized the “permanent and long-term good”of the community,unlike the modern pluralist view of the public interest as the sum of individual interests,which was reflected in his endorsement of the quality of public decision-making through the “ambition against ambition”mechanism of checks and balances in constitutional design.Madison’s ideas originated from and transcended his era.
