Protecting the Internet with international law

The Internet remains the odd child of international law. While forever more universal law venues such as conferences, edited volumes or research projects consider “the Internet” a peculiar, interesting aspect of its well-recognized disciplines, international scholarship fails to address the global network as a whole, stalling the application of the fully developed and well-suited international law apparatus to the global community's biggest contemporary challenge. “Internet governance” is still perceived by legal scholars as construed to international relations and, at best, a potential ground for soft law in a distant future. That is not the case: Internet governance, with all its challenges, has been shaping international law for almost two decades. The latest unveilings of the ways in which the Internet impacts global policies and laws caught the public eye with the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal and, previously, with the 2013 Snowden revelations, yet as surprising as they might have been to the average user, they are direct results of network's architecture and its governance model. This paper looks at the evolving concept of “Internet's public core” as an opportunity to bridge this dogmatic gap. We identify the scope and meaning of “Internet's core” and assess its legitimacy within existing international normative frameworks. We argue that the technical components crucial to the flawless operation of the global network, such as the Domain Name System and Internet's backbone networks, can be effectively protected with international law.     

法人与行政主体理论的再探讨——以公法人概念为重点

公法人和私法人的区分是大陆法系对法人的基本分类,具有重要的理论和实践意义。我国应当重新塑造行政主体理论,特别应当采用公法人概念。在法人一般理论上,则应当修正法人的一般定义,并且在将来的民法典中以更加合理的方式规定公法人问题。国家机关不应当具有法人和行政主体地位,国家才是法人和行政主体。     

Infusing Public Law into Privatized Welfare: Lawyers,Economists, and the Competing Logics of Administrative Reform

Along with the trend toward “New Public Management” (NPM) and replacing the legal culture of public bureaucracies with market logic through privatization, we are also witnessing instances of “publicization,” the application of public law norms and mechanisms to privatized services. The article explores the role of government lawyers and economists in the dynamics of these administrative reforms. Using a detailed case study of welfare‐to‐work reform in Israel, it shows that the reconstruction of decision making and accountability patterns under NPM was the result of competing efforts by these professional groups to appropriate the “privatized state” to accord with their own institutional logics and interests. While economists advanced a “market” logic, lawyers tried to reproduce the logic of “law” in the post‐bureaucratic setting. The study demonstrates how eventually public law norms were re‐infused into privatized welfare as a result of the increasing institutional power of the lawyers in the regulatory space, along with wider political and social support for the entrenched legalistic mechanisms of the administrative state. However, in addition to the “battle of norms” between lawyers and economists, there were also concessions that led to the redrawing of the boundaries of public law along more functional, rather than formal, lines.     

Serving two masters: the interaction between Family and Medical Leave Acts and the ADA

The complex interaction between family leave acts and the new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is just coming to light as employers begin to analyze how to comply with both laws. Specifically, the ADA implicates the procedures set forth in most family leave acts for verifying an employee's need for a leave through mandatory medical examinations and doctor's certificates. Many employees who are entitled to a leave of absence under state law are defined as "disabled" under the ADA. The ADA protects these employees with disabilities by regulating medical examinations and inquiries, and protecting the confidentiality of information obtained in such inquiries. This article offers some practical guidance for employers in providing leaves of absence under state family leave acts, while verifying the need for leaves in compliance with the ADA.     

对行政法学基础理论的思考

我们究竟需要构建一门什么样的行政法学科?当今我国行政法学界对这个命题的回答形成了不同的观点。笔者认为,行政法的基本价值取向应当是“控权”和“服务”。行政法是一部“控权法”加“服务法”,是控制行政权的法,是服务于社会、服务于民的法。控权和服务是双向的,共同构成了行政法学理论基础的两个支点。     

司法决策中的“父爱主义”管制逻辑

在包括赵春华案在内的诸多引发舆论关注的争议案件中,法官或许并非不是不懂得如何利用社科法学的判断能力与法教义学的裁判技术去弥合司法标准与公众认知之间的巨大断裂,而更可能是基于其“父爱”式的社会“管制”取向而对司法后果的实质合理性问题做出了“爱之深,责之切”的价值决断。在中国特色社会主义法律体系已经形成的历史背景下,为了保证良法的颁行能够导向预期的善治,法律必须以其作为“社会交往机制”的系统潜力而彰显其公理性与司法的合理性。只有首先确立基于交往原则和承认社会自主性的权力逻辑与法律决策结构,那种体现“人性化”“人文化”和“人权化”的方法论逻辑才有可能在法律的运作中获得国家体制官僚无法武断拒斥的实效。     

舆论与刑法的偏差式互动:刑事责任年龄个别下调的中国叙事

降低刑事责任年龄的舆论诉求与刑法回应已然发展成为一对既密切关联、又有所区别,甚至存在矛盾冲突的新力量,深度嵌入未成年人罪错行为治理的复杂格局之中。引入长短期记忆网络(LSTM)对14058条新浪微博相关评论文本进行情感分类,分别统计正向、中性、负向情感的高频词,可以数据化呈现社会舆论的具体诉求与刑法回应的实际效果。面对社会舆论对刑法功能的过度期许、对保护理念的极度排斥、对规范设置的明确否定,刑法采用了分散式功能叙说、不能“一放了之”的话语体系置换、年龄整体下调与多重限制并行的回应策略。然而,这一回应策略导致社会舆论对刑法的功能期许不降反升、保护与惩戒的理念认可度更加失衡、限制性规范存在异化风险。刑法应在理解、尊重社会舆论的演化逻辑与核心诉求的前提下,逐步缩小功能诉求与治理供给的偏差,以惩戒理念的强调带动保护理念的培植,寻找支持个别下调的正当性基础,探索“舆论诉求—刑法引导—社会互动”的“杜鹃—鸳鸯模式”。     

PPP模式下政府的角色定位——兼论担保行政法学模式的兴起

PPP是政府和社会资本共担风险、合力达成公共任务的创新模式。在PPP模式下政府不再承担公共任务的履行责任,转而承担国家担保责任。政府承担国家担保责任,使得政府的角色从公法上的公共任务的“履行者”转变为“担保者”和“合作者”。政府角色和职能的重大转变导致传统行政法学模式转向担保行政法学模式。担保行政法学模式是以国家担保责...     

新冠肺炎疫情“依法防控”内涵解读

针对此次新冠肺炎疫情,习近平总书记提出了“依法防控”的战略部署,并强调指出当前疫情防控正处于关键时期,依法科学有序防控至关重要。“依法防控”是深入推进全面依法治国的具体实践,是国家治理现代化的现实要求。坚持“依法防控”,应从国家、社会、公众三个层面进行思考,将顶层设计与法治实践完美结合,切实打赢疫情防控攻坚战。     

Jurisprudential Foundation of the Alogithmic Enforcement and Regulation of Law in an Intelligent Society: Taking the Automated Copyright Infringement Monitoring of the Online Content Sharing Platform as an Example

As cyber-space has become increasingly important for human activities, and intelligent algorithms are widely used in cyber-space, we are rapidly entering an intelligent society. Now, algorithmic enforcement and regulations of law have posed non-negligible issues. As algorithmic enforcement of copyright law was introduced earlier than that of other laws, it provides a helpful observation perspective. The worldwide practice of copyright enforcement has gradually departed from traditional “safe harbor provisions, ” and has emphasized prior examination of shared contents uploaded by Internet service providers’ (ISPs) users through the following three dimensions: automated infringement detection algorithms voluntarily used by the ISPs, heavier judicial liability of ISPs, and updated legislation principles. Thus, innovations and development have stimulated new mechanisms and regulations for enforcing copyright in cyberspace. Algorithmic enforcement of copyright law in an intelligent society is essential and meaningful. The copyright regulation mechanisms should be guided by jurisprudential principles and concepts featuring the principles of (a) legitimate and efficient flow of information, (b) balance between and among algorithmic power, public power and private rights, (c) boosting the sharing economy and the new gig economy, and (d) promoting social governance philosophy of “coconstruction, co-governance and sharing.” These principles are meaningful for creation of a new mechanism for balancing interests between ISPs and their users, and for introducing the pluralistic co-governance mechanism beyond simply practicing “filtering obligations.” In addition, these principles are significant for improving a certification with credibility of copyright status and ownership, and for advancing a mechanism for online collegiate-panel dispute resolution.     

Link law: The emerging law of internet hyperlinks

Although Internet enthusiasts often claim a right of on‐line associations, that is, a right freely to link to other content on the Internet, evolving case law demonstrates that there is no absolute right to associate or link on the Internet. Rather, business law at times imposes limits and penalties on linking. As business grows on the Internet, litigants are likely to use creative theories based on unfair competition and intellectual property law to seek limits on linking. This article examines the first waves of Internet link law cases, how the legal positions have been framed and the principles with which those cases have been resolved. The article reviews the basics of the legal theories used (and likely to be used in the future) to challenge links. The article then reviews key linking cases involving, among other issues, direct links, “framing” and “inlining,” hidden metalinks and contributory infringement through links and mirror sites. The article concludes that, contrary to the original ethos of Internet use, in the era of business use of the Internet, linkages will often be scrutinized and controlled, and sometimes discouraged, litigated or penalized.     

法律与逻辑——对法律与逻辑关系的一种全面解读

本文主要对法律与逻辑关系进行了全面的探讨。对逻辑学和法学之间交叉性的一些问题进行了回顾和总结。首先,探讨了什么是“法律逻辑”,并重点介绍了我国学者较陌生的“规范逻辑”,将两者进行了比较;其次,对法理学和逻辑学都关心的“法律推理”问题进行了探讨,比较了“法律推理”和“司法推理”两者的异同,以及两大法系“法律推理”的特点和差异;最后,对饱受批判的“法律形式主义”进行了研究,指出应当辩证地看待“法律形式主义”的功与过。最后,作者结合我国的实际,认为:我们不能借口反对“法律形式主义”而忽视和否定逻辑在法律领域中的作用。     

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。     

“法律人”建构论纲

立足于法学学科基点的设定,必须提炼“法律人”的人学模式。所谓法律人,即参与法律生活的普通民众,他们依存于法律、参与法律及受制于法律。法学体系、法律基础、法律分析及法律发展方面的需要,为法律人模式的构建奠定了坚实基础,而人类行为的常态、法律制度中人的观念的引入及法学流派有关人的模式的竞争,使法律人模式的构建得以可能。至于法律人的具体特性,论文以“拟制人”、“一般人”、“正常人”、“复合人”进行了概括。     

Rediscovering the public/private divide in EU private law

This article explores the role of the public/private divide within EU private law. It shows that although EU private law cuts across the boundaries of public and private law, the conceptual distinction between these well‐established categories does matter within it and may lead to better law‐making in the EU more generally. The legal grammar of a particular EU harmonisation measure—which can be more “public” or “private”—may have important implications for the position of private parties at national level, for the CJEU's likely activism in this context, and ultimately for the measure's ability to realise its policy goals. Therefore, instead of ignoring the existing differences between public and private law, EU law should explicitly adopt the public/private law language in its discourse, without, however, introducing any sharp divide between these two areas.     

Fear of the Disability Con: Perceptions of Fraud and Special Rights Discourse

This article presents a new framework for analyzing the development and implementation of disability law: the prism of the fear of “the disability con”—popular perceptions of fraud and fakery. We all encounter disability rights and accommodations in everyday life. However, people with disabilities pay a price for the legal recognition of their rights. People who park in disabled parking spots, use service dogs, move to the front of lines, receive Social Security benefits, or request academic accommodations are often viewed as faking disabilities and abusing the law. This disability con stereotype thus serves as an important invisible barrier preventing Americans with disabilities from fully taking part in society, as it not only undermines the public legitimacy of rights but also restricts the design and implementation of the legal regime illustrating those. Nevertheless, this moral panic around disability con in American society and its manifestations has yet to be studied in a systematic‐empirical way, nor has it been addressed in sociolegal scholarship. Using a mixed‐methods approach composed of an original nationally representative survey along with in‐depth interviews, this article fills this gap. The data suggest that the stereotype of disability con applies to multiple disability rights across venues and contexts; that nearly 60% of Americans with disabilities feel that others question their disability; that the stereotype of disability con extends to visible disabilities and to less apparent ones; and that, counterintuitively, the people most suspicious are nondisabled individuals with a personal connection to a disabled person and disabled people who experience suspicion themselves. Based on the richer understanding of the sociolegal phenomenon, this article suggests strategies to increase trust and reduce suspicion of the disability con.     

论比例原则在经济法中的适用

被誉为“公法皇冠”的比例原则在经济法中的适用具有可行性和必要性。比例原则的“相对普适性”为其在经济法中的适用提供了法理基础,引入比例原则不仅可以回应经济法现代性的内在诉求,还是贯彻经济法理念和基本原则的必然要求。比例原则在经济法中的适用范围涵盖“权力—权利”和“权利—权利”二元法律关系结构,但是,特殊紧急状态和合意行为应排除比例原则的适用。囿于比例原则的抽象性,有必要构建其在经济法中的类型化适用路径:以法律关系结构为划分依据,通过“目的正当性—适当性—必要性—均衡性”的差异化认定标准,塑造“宽松”和“相对严格”的审查基准模型。     

China's campaign-style Internet finance governance: Causes,effects, and lessons learned for new information-based approaches to governance,

China's Internet companies and citizens are now world leaders in developing and using the Internet and related information technologies for financial transactions. Accordingly, it is important that China becomes a world leader in identifying challenges posed by Internet finance, and providing law and governance solutions to address these challenges. While the Internet and its associated technologies are now globally available, a core question is whether, and to what extent, regulatory challenges and opportunities are common across different jurisdictions, or whether they reflect local circumstances. In short, an interesting question is what can the world learn from China as it takes the lead in addressing Internet finance challenges, and what can China learn from the world as it seeks to do so?This article first identifies the landscape of China's burgeoning Internet finance market, including key technologies and services and government and nongovernment players. The article then turns to key regulatory challenges, with a focus on factors especially significant in China. The article then examines the “top down” “campaign style” approach to regulation, which is China government's initial response to emerging challenges. Following an analysis of the campaign, some suggestions are then made for future possible governance strategies. We explain how emerging “information” based and experiment-based approaches to governance are drawing on both global and Chinese experiences to harness the capabilities of the Internet and the collective energies of Internet finance enterprises and users to advance the regulation of the China Internet finance system in a way that is conducive to the public interest.     

孔子“义利”观与现代法治和谐理念

孔子思想是第一次文化轴心时代人类思想的伟大创造,儒家社会理想的本原是“和谐”。孔子纳“仁”入“礼”,希望通过体现以民为本的社会正义观的“礼法”体系去整合社会,最终实现社会和谐的目标。在孔子的利、义观中,个人之“利”与个人之“义”并不相互冲突。孔子的“义利”观体现了法律的利益调控功能与正义价值的和谐统一,与和谐社会的法治理念有契合性。孔子思想中所体现的“利”与“义”的和谐统一观,对今天以社会和谐为目标的法治建设具有重要的启示作用。     

传统合法化资源与农民工的利益表达——基于农民工1733份领导留言的文本分析

农民工的利益表达一直是地方政府非常重视的议题。但是,其表达方式尤其是他们是如何把自己的利益赋予合法性仍缺乏中国化的研究。论文通过对1733份农民工领导留言的文本分析,深入观察到诉求者“利”的合法化方式和策略,以及内化的“情”“理”“法”的文化心理结构。研究发现,在“重义轻利”为主导的文化心理框架下,诉求者需要把“利”合法化。通过“情”“理”“法”来赋予“利”以道德涵义和逻辑,从而形成了“情”“理”“法”的交互关系。由此,论文根据“情”“理”“法”的三者关系把合法化结构分为三种类型:传统型的情理法模式、理想型的法理情模式和现实型的理情法模式。以“理”作为评判底层民众利益表达行为的标准和尺度存在模糊性的风险。现实型的理情法文化心理模式意味着诉求者的心理结构仍然处于从传统型向现代型转变过程之中。为此,政府在处理诉求者的利益表达时需要加强法治化的引导。