Rights and Resources—Libertarians and the Right to Life

The author addresses Robert Nozick's claim that: “The particular rights over things fill the space of rights, leaving no room for general rights to be in a certain material condition.” Hence Nozick insists that rights are violated if citizens are compelled to contribute to others' welfare, however urgent their needs may be. The author argues that it is characteristic of libertarian theories that they invoke the moral sanctity of private property against welfarist or egalitarian conceptions of social justice. Nozick's version of the libertarian critique has three conceptual pillars–“right,”“thing” and “space.” On that basis Nozick claims that talk of welfare “rights” can be condemned on the plane of rights. This is true, Nozick maintains, even of “the right to life.” The author contends that this argument fails. It equivocates over the idea of “rights”; and it misconceives crucial features of property. Nozick deploys exclusive “domain rights,” whilst attacking “important‐interest rights.” His historical‐entitlement theory fails as a justification of private property. The author argues that, so far as material objects are concerned, private property institutions depend upon trespassory rules which do not impose morally binding obligations unless basic needs are catered for. Furthermore, private property institutions also comprise monetary resources to which the spatial metaphor of exclusive rights does not apply. Holdings vested in any particular person at any particular time are stamped, morally, with a mix of contestable and mutable property‐specific justice reasons. Hence it is fallacious to suppose that ownership rights together exhaust all normative space over “things.” The major objection to speaking of everyone's having a right to various things such as equality of opportunity, life, and so on, and enforcing this right, is that these “rights” require a substructure of things and materials and actions; and other people may have rights and entitlements over these. [≡] The particular rights over things fill the space of rights, leaving no room for general rights to be in a certain material condition. (Nozick 1974, 238)     

基本权利第三人效力的范畴与本质

基本权利第三人效力,也被称为水平效力、私人效力、基本权利在私法或私人法律关系中的效力等。第三人效力是指,基本权利能否以及在何种程度上可以对诉讼当事人之间的民事实体法律关系产生影响。实践中,公私二元划分是第三人效力探讨的基础;基本权利客观法属性是第三人效力的规范范畴;基本权利人类图像与自由权的多重面向是第三人效力的价值范畴;基本权利保护义务是第三人效力的义务范畴;基本权利取向解释是第三人效力的方法范畴。第三人效力具有体系正义、规范正义和个案正义的诉求,本质上是涵盖不同范畴的结构性效力。提出第三人效力的目的在于国家通过干预社会和消解社会不公正,为私人主体创造秩序和自由。     

试论知识产权限制的法理基础

利益平衡是构建知识产权限制制度的基本法律观。各类主体的相互利益关系,在知识产权法律中的权利配置方面,表现为本权与他权、私权与公益的关系;知识产权虽为一种独占性权利,但往往受到一定的限制,包括公共领域保留、权利行使限制、禁止权利滥用等;知识产权立法应秉持二元价值目标,即保护创造者合法权益和促进知识广泛传播。     

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ERA,HORIZONTAL EFFECT AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN “STATE” AND “SOCIETY” IN GERMAN AND EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY

The article discusses the proposal for a “Charter of Digital Fundamental Rights of the European Union,” whose central element is a binding effect of its fundamental rights not only to state authorities, but also to powerful private internet companies, which have a potential similar to that of the state to infringe on fundamental rights in the digital era. The article outlines the traditional German approach to fundamental rights and its underlying distinction between state and society, which makes it difficult for German scholars to handle a so-called horizontal effect of fundamental rights. Finally, the article discusses the main objections to such a horizontal effect and shows some practical problems it has the potential to cause in German and European constitutional law.     

宪法基本权利与民事权利之互动原因研究——以人格权为分析进路

宪法基本权利与民事权利之间的双向互动关系是宪法与民法之间关系的缩影,对其互动原因的分析研究,旨在探求影响和决定公法与私法、宪法与民法之互动关系背后的深层原因,从而厘清影响我国当前法治建设进程的相关理论观点。现代以来,随着国家职能的变迁和社会关系的日益复杂,传统的公私法二分式结构渐趋模糊,市民社会与政治国家之间的界限已不再分明,社会福利国家理论的兴起为宪法基本权利与民事权利、宪法与民法、公法与私法之间的互动和交流提供了现实的物质基础和广泛的作用空间。基于理论和实践层面的双重需求,现代国家更多地介入到了私权领域和经济社会生活中而冲破了原有的理论和制度对国家公权所埋设下的层层藩篱,由此导致了公私法在现代社会的各个层面上的互动和交融。     

Towards Administrative Human Rights in the EU. Impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Abstract: This article analyses the development of administrative human rights in the EU. It demonstrates that the new right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights crowns a long process of constitutionalisation of basic administrative rights in the Community. The article discusses the meaning, content, and possible impact of Article 41 of the Charter. It explains, inter alia, the doctrinal basis of a ‘right to good administration’, and its more immediate origins. It also offers a textual analysis and commentary of Article 41. Other rights, which possibly come within the concept of ‘good administration’ but are not included in Article 41, are also suggested. The article concludes with an evaluation of Article 41 of the Charter. It argues that although Article 41 is a significant development in terms of individual administrative rights, it offers a one‐sided vision of the function of administrative law.     

The Meaning of 'Natural Person' and the Impact of the Constitution for Europe on the Development of European Private Law

Abstract:  European codes of private law have traditionally commenced with a concept of the person. In the development of private law in the European Union, we require a modern concept of the person, one which goes beyond the idea of the bearer of economic rights, to one which embraces ideas of human rights and social solidarity, as found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Nice Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.     

民法理论在知识产权中的运用

知识产权属于私权性质的民事权利 ,与物权、债权、人身权既存在共性 ,也存在个性。从其共性入手 ,进而再探究其个性 ,以取得对知识产权问题的全面认识。研究知识产权 ,应当以民法原则、理论为基础 ;基于知识产权客体的无形性 ,传统民法理论和制度并不能完全适用于知识产权 ,因此 ,还要适用特殊的理论和制度体系 ,世界上大多数国家的知识产权法采取民事法律制度下制定知识产权单行法的立法模式就是最好的例证。     

State Tasks and Human Rights

This paper analyses the change in the notion of fundamental and human rights in Germany and throughout the European Union during the process of European integration. This change, that can be summarized in the formula “from human rights to state tasks,” signifies the integration and partial amendment of the French Revolution's ideals (liberté, égalité, fraternité) with the new ideals of security, diversity and solidarity. These new ideals make it necessary for the state to play a positive role in devising, for example, a policy of minority recognition and a long list of social rights. These rights are often translated into merely generic “norms on state objectives” and not directly binding law in force. This means that such rights increasingly become a political and legislative issue making it more difficult for the Courts to offer guarantees. 1 Abstract by Giorgio Bongiovanni.
     

The Horizontal Effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU: Rediscovering the Reasons for Horizontality

This article analyses the horizontal effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Horizontal effect has been an integral part of the Union's application of fundamental rights, especially in the field of equality. However, the codification of fundamental rights in the Charter raises important questions as to how horizontal effect will continue to apply in the EU, particularly in the aftermath of the Court's reticent rulings in cases such as Dominguez and Association de Médiation Sociale. This article argues that the emphasis on prior approaches to horizontal effect in recent rulings fails to address the profound constitutional issues that the horizontal effect of a fundamental rights catalogue raises, which concern the role of private responsibility within the developing constitutional order of the European Union. It therefore calls for a more systematically theorised approach towards the horizontal application of fundamental rights under the Charter framework.     

Supranational Fundamental Rights or Primacy of Sovereignty?

This analysis explores in detail various aspects of the possible legal impact of ‘British’ Protocol No 30 (the so‐called opt‐out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). On the basis of a legal appraisal, it concludes that the Protocol is not in any way to be understood as a substantial derogation from the standard of protection of fundamental rights in the EU or as an ‘opt‐out’ from the Charter in a substantial sense. Nevertheless, its significance is definitely not to be underestimated. Its adoption as a source of primary law enshrines a legally binding interpretation of the Charter and, in particular, an interpretation of its horizontal provisions. In Article 1(2) and Article 2, the Protocol in fact confirms that the application of the Charter cannot lead to a change in the existing competencies framework. These provisions are of a declaratory nature and apply to all Member States. In Article 1(1), the Protocol is of a constitutive nature since it rules out an extensive interpretation of what can be considered national legal acts adopted in the implementation of EU law only for those States signed up to the Protocol. This specifically means that if, in the future, as part of the application of the Charter, the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) has a tendency to subsume a certain area of national legislation under the ‘implementation of Union law’ outside the field of implementing standards, in the spirit of the Ellinki Radiophonia Tileorassi judgment (and subsequently allow their reviewability with respect to their conformity with the Charter), such action would be admissible only for those Member States that have not acceded to the Protocol. However, the Protocol cannot exclude the continued application of the general principles of law instead of the positively constituted fundamental rights in the Charter by the ECJ.     

农村承包地三权分置制度入典研究

《农村土地承包法修正案》将“三权分置”政策内容上升为法律规定,确立承包地三权分置制度。对解决承包地流转闭锁抵押难行等问题意义重大。却因将承包经营权本集体经济组织内封闭流转以法律固化,新设土地经营权性质不清、类型混合、流转不济,无益承包地债权性与物权性并可市场化开放性流转之“三权分置”目标实现。受其影响,《民法典分编(草案)》亦存同样问题。亟待农村承包地三权分置制度进一步入典完善。在实地调研基础上,遵循《民法总则》落实集体土地所有权前提下,于《民法典分编(草案)》完善中,基于英美地产权客体权益分离理论与大陆法系二次权能分离理论具兼创债权性与物权性经营权功能的地权二次分离理论,在保持土地承包经营权规定不变上,从其客体权益中分离出二元化土地经营权,并分别于合同编增设农地租赁经营合同具体规范债权性经营权、于物权编构造“农用地使用权”科学规范物权性经营权。以利能以债权性经营权顺农地灵活经营实践、物权性经营权应农地抵押及长期经营所需的二元化路径,促现行承包经营权本集体经济组织内封闭流转向派生出的土地经营权市场化开放性流转发展,以实现农村承包地三权分置制度入典达成“三权分置”、“放活土地经营权”之政策目标。     

海洋资源权属制度的多维解读

海洋资源利用的"xx使用权模式"引发一系列海洋资源权属理论上的困境。在"体系后研究范式"下,海洋资源权属从"公有物"到私权盛行的变迁,表明传统私法视域下海洋资源权属制度具有反思和检讨的必要性,这是由海洋资源权属立法上的诟病、适用范畴的不周全性以及理论依据的争议性所决定的。基于海洋资源国家所有权、环境法理念以及国家主权或者管理权等多维逻辑进路的考量,海洋资源权属制度是公私法色彩兼具的混合权属机制。海洋资源权属制度的多维解读,其主要的现实价值在于提升民族的海洋意识和海洋能力。     

物权的行政法保护与规制

基于物权的自由属性,现代国家无不对物权提供全面的保护。而物权的社会化,突破了政治国家与市民社会、公法与私法的二元分析框架,其突出表现是行政权大量入侵物权领域,具体包括保护与规制两个层面。因此,物权立法应当立足于私产保护,以社会为本位,把物权置于全部社会关系之中,在规定物权的私法规则的同时,确立物权与行政权的基本关系准则:限制行政征收征用;对合法财产不得处以没收处罚;物权在行政法上的义务应随物权消灭而终止;同时,灵活规定物权登记不作为的物权效果,物权的发展和保护应当向行政法开放,以限制不合理的行政规制,并激活行政法的物权保护功能。     

非法实施发明专利入罪的认识误区及克服

加强专利权保护是形势使然。专利权具有无形性、公开性和非竞争性,容易受到侵害。专利民事司法保护存在刚性不足、赔偿数额认定难等局限。专利行政执法对效率的追求造成程序监督弱化。刑法具有制裁手段的严厉性和“二次保障性”特征,遏制专利侵权优势明显。以专利权系私权、专利权具有不确定性、专利案件审理存在技术性难题为由反对非法实施发明专利侵权入罪的主张并不成立。专利刑事立法应当从“权利救济”转向“法益救济”,重构有关专利犯罪客体,增设非法实施发明专利罪,把故意侵犯发明专利且情节严重的行为规定为犯罪。     

物权法草案的若干问题

由其第六次审议结果看,物权法草案在如下方面尚需进一步完善:不宜规定“根据宪法,制定本法”;不应废弃“物权法定原则”;不宜规定“野生动物资源属于国家所有”;不宜规定“国有化”措施;承包经营权的期限应统一规定为五十年;不可轻率规定“动产浮动抵押”;“公路、桥梁收费权”和“应收账款”融资,属于典型的“债权转让”,不宜规定在权利质权制度之中。     

环境财产权制度构建理论研究

权利基础研究是部门法理论发展的源泉,以环境权理论引领并承载环境法制度的纵深发展困难重重.环境财产权公法性私权的研究视角,直面资源时代生态保护的现实立法需求和个体性私权保护的宪政价值,拓展环境法制度架构空间,开展环境法与传统部门法的对话.环境财产权尊重并吸纳国家环境政策与制度创新的实践成果,以环境利用和保护中的财产利益为中心,探求排污权、环境容量使用权、环境利用权、生态效益受益权等管制型环境私权法理基础和生长空间.并围绕环境财产权制度目标的实现,探求环境财产权保护的制度平台和国家环境制度创新的发展方向.     

Human Dignity in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Interpretation Before the European Court of Justice

This article argues that the EU Charter’s dignity provisions must be given a specific, expansive European meaning that underpins the importance the EU places on fundamental rights protection as a principle EU value. To this end, the article examines the EU Charter provisions on dignity and critically analyses the case law before the EU Charter had full legal effect and after it did. It finishes with looking at three areas in which the potential for an expansive interpretation of dignity could help bring the EU closer to its people and fully respect and protect dignity: asylum, criminal justice and sexual orientation.     

论体育赛事转播权的体育法规制

体育赛事转播权作为一种体育行业约定俗成的惯用语,在我国并未构成法律权利。体育赛事转播“三点三层”的商业模式和法律构架能够证明,体育赛事转播建筑于赛事组织者对于体育赛事所享有的某种未经法律认可的基础性权利。学理分析表明,“商品化权”和“无形财产权”的学说并不能正确解释此种基础权利,而“物权”和“民事权益”的解释方法也难以精确的定位该权利属性。因此,赛事组织者对体育赛事所拥有的绝对权难以在现有法律体系内得到妥善解释。在比较欧美体育强国有关体育赛事转播权法律定性的基础上,本文指出,赛事权利应由体育法进行规范,赋予体育协会赛事权利人的合法地位,从而借助民法和体育法间的一般法和特别法关系完整保障赛事权利,这也是解决具有行业特殊性的体育法律问题的一种有效方式。     

论私有财产权的人权属性及在人权体系中的地位

私有财产权是个人维持其生存和发展的最基本的物质保障,是人之为人不可或缺的一项基本权利,它不是财产作为物的权利,而是人作为人支配物的权利,是一项基本的人权.财产权与生命权和自由权一道被称为三大基本人权,是人权大厦的基石.财产权又构成生命权、自由权发挥作用的物质基础和条件,是生命权、自由权自然延伸的结果.没有财产权作为基础的生命权和自由权是不现实的,财产权越安全,生命权就越有保障,自由权就更为真实和牢靠.