In the face of massive collection and use of personal information in the era of big data,the prevalent cognitive and structural problems have undermined the foundation of personal information self-control.The characteristics and operational mechanisms of big data have limited the utility of such tools(principles)as notice-consent,purpose limitation,and data minimization.Efforts should be made to shift the paradigm from individual control to social protection.The procuratorial public interest litigation is an important mechanism to practice the social control paradigm.The publicity of personal information is the legitimate basis for procuratorial public interest litigation to intervene in personal information protection.Although notable results have been achieved in terms of procuratorial public interest litigation for personal information protection so far,there is still large room for improvement in terms of case type,scope of claims,litigation rules,and ownership of compensation.Although Article 70 of the Personal Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China has responded to the existing problems,the provisions are only roughly generalized ones and can hardly offer specific guidance to judicial practice.In future judicial practice,risk prevention should be treated as the main function of the system.Efforts should be made to find more sources of case clues,simplify antecedent procedures,actively explore preventive public interest litigation,and give full play to the exemplary and leading role of procuratorial public interest litigation.Efforts should also be made to further detail causes of action,avoid simplifying"infringement"into"harm,"implement the reversion of burden of proof,and establish sound supporting systems for punitive damages and compensation management.
1997年修订时的刑法分则条文,大体上以重刑主义作为指导理念设置法定刑,《刑法修正案(八)》之后的刑事立法,对增设的许多新罪则采取了轻刑主义,于是形成了重刑化与轻刑化并存的立法例;这种立法例导致对部分刑事案件被告人的处罚要么很轻要么很重,因而不符合罪刑均衡的要求.为了克服这种不均衡现象,一方面应当寻找合适的中间犯罪,即通过对已有犯罪构造的合理解释,使交通肇事、重大责任事故、重大劳动安全事故等罪包括单纯的过失犯与结果加重犯两种类型;另一方面应当运用适当的解释方法,即通过对轻罪的扩大解释(使轻罪的适用范围向较重的行为扩张)与对重罪的限制解释,寻求妥当的解释结论,尽可能实现对犯罪处罚的整体均衡.
不成立的行政行为不一定不可诉,法律拟制不成立、欠缺要式等背景下同样可以成就行政行为的可诉性.成立不是行政行为的可诉标准,也非可诉时点.阶段性行为的可诉性不以最终行为成立为前提,作为可诉标准之"权利义务实际影响"并非必须系于最终行为和以四要件齐备为前提.一个行政行为过程并非只有最终行为一次成立,成立也不系于四要件齐备背景下的法律效果要素,其他成立要件同样可以具有外部性、处理性和权利义务实际影响功能,并可以单独成就阶段性行为的可诉性.应以动态的"行政过程运行+权利义务实际影响"而非静态的"最终行为成立+权利义务实际影响"模式来析出可诉行政行为,如此才能拓展可诉行为范围和前移可诉时点.
新冠疫情下,公共卫生措施的实施在世界各国产生一定阻力,审视反抗疫者的人权主张,其本质是过于狭隘地理解个体人权,忽视了人权本身的义务意蕴.从历史角度而言,卫生防疫是人类社会存续和发展的客观必然;从伦理角度,共同抗疫是个人与社会协同发展之道德义务;从规范角度,传染病治理更是众多国际公约确立的基本共识.纠正对于个体人权观念的狭隘认识,在大流行治理中应当确立整体人权观,并在大流行公约中塑造人类卫生健康共同体理念以凝聚治理共识,贯彻同一健康理念以明确治理范围,落实共同但有区别责任原则并强化个体和社区在公共卫生治理中的参与以完善治理路径,以此塑造更为合理有效的大流行治理秩序.
为加强世界预防、防范和应对大流行及恢复卫生系统的能力,大流行公约从构想提出伊始就带有弥补《国际卫生条例》不足的使命.《国际卫生条例》的决策机制具有决策权集中、技术化偏好与效率低下的固有局限.因此,大流行公约应当在正当程序原则、共商共建共享原则以及风险预防原则的指引下,针对公约机制下的新法制定、公约的解释与适用构建决策机制.缔约方会议作为决策机构,应当采取"协商一致+投票表决"的决策方式,以平衡效率与公平之间的矛盾.协商机构作为决策辅助机构,应当通过推动非正式磋商提高效率,发展议题集团机制以保障公平,设置协商机构主席以增进共识.在决策商议程序和事后评估与调整中设置专家论证制度,以兼顾决策的及时性和科学性.
