Information Privacy Protection in the New Chinese Civil Code: Priority or Replacement?

The right to privacy has been developed through judicial practice and has evolved from “the protection of the right to reputation” to “privacy interest” then to “privacy right.” The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (2020) clarifies the right to information privacy and the right to personal information as two independent personality rights and establishes a privacy priority protection mechanism for private information in civil law. The comparative efficiency of the right to personal information may mean that the protection of the right to information privacy is weakened or even replaced by the right to personal information. The uncertainty and fragmentation of private information also creates a wide gray space for judicial decisions. The development from traditional privacy right to information privacy right and personal information right is generally positive and shows the active legal response to the protection of private information in multiple ways. However, clarifications and systematization are required to increase the effectiveness of such protections.     

个人信息权的宪法(学)证成——基于对区分保护论和支配权论的反思

《个人信息保护法》最终纳入“根据宪法”条款,表征着个人信息保护法律体系在底层逻辑上的更动。民法学上权利与利益的区分保护原理,难以适用于整个合宪性法秩序。应将个人信息权确立为宪法位阶的基本权利,并以基本权利作为针对国家的主观防御权和辐射一切法领域的客观价值秩序的原理,协调个人信息保护的私法机制和公法机制。通过对人权条款笼罩下的通信权和人格尊严条款的解释,可以在学理上证立“基本权利束”性质的个人信息权。但其具体保护则应分别归入不同基本权利条款,作出区分化、差异化的多层次构造。个人信息保护的支配权思维有其局限,告知同意模式的式微是重要表现。应将个人信息权的规范目标调整为人格的自由发展,指向免于他人的人格干预。从支配权到人格发展权的思维转换,有助于规制对已收集信息的不当利用、破除“信息茧房”、缓和个人信息保护与利用之间的紧张,以及在“个人—平台—国家”的三方关系中有效保护个人的自决,同时为数据产业保留发展空间。     

个人健康医疗信息和隐私权保护

Personal health care and medical treatment information are both personal information which can be used as a sign to identify each individual. Such information shall be under the control of the owner. The comprehensiveness of personal health care and medical treatment information makes it more valuable than the simplex personal information. The controlling right of personal health care and medical treatment information is irretrievable once deprived. The rights of controlling, managing and using regarding personal health care and medical treatment information can be separated appropriately. The right of privacy is an independent personality right. For the protection of public interests, the right of personal privacy shall be appropriately limited. Meanwhile, the government shall be responsible for the protection of personal health care and medical treatment information. Tang Xiaotian is a professor and supervisor in charge of the development and planning division of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, and deputy General Secretary-in-chief of the Society of Law of Shanghai, whose main studies is focused on victim science, criminal law and criminology. Till now, he has 8 monographs and over 90 articles published in academic journals.     

The German Facebook case: the law and economics of the relationship between competition and data protection law

European Journal of Law and Economics - Can competition law consider effects on privacy, or should privacy concerns of data-collecting behaviour only be dealt with by data protection law? In this...     

文化遗产数字化成果私权保护:价值、成效及制度调适

《知识产权强国建设纲要》和党的十九大报告中明确指出要加强非物质文化遗产的搜集整理和转化利用,推动中华优秀传统文化创造性转化、创新性发展,文化遗产传承和发展由此迎来自我更新的契机.我国对于文化遗产的相关法律保护目前以公法为主,私法保护取得了一定的实践成效,但其法律制度尚不完善.而数字环境下文化遗产及其元素的利用较强地依赖...     

言论自由、出版自由、新闻自由的主体及其法律保护

言论自由的主体是自然人 ,出版自由的主体是自然人和法人 ,新闻自由的主体是法人。法律应当对言论区别不同类型给以相应的保护 ;对出版自由 ,法律既要保护 ,又要限制 ,但二者的界限尚有待明确 ;法律对新闻自由在保护的同时 ,要注意它与公民个人权利、与国家权力、与公众人物的利益发生冲突时应采取不同的调整手段。     

The legal construction of personal information protection and privacy under the Chinese Civil Code

Personal information protection and privacy interact in diverse ways, especially in the contemporary information age. Although books and articles have focused on this topic, the new tendencies of worldwide legislation and judicial practice bring challenges, as the legal construction of personal information protection and privacy differs from culture to culture and time to time. In 2017, the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (“the General Provisions of the Chinese Civil Code” hereafter)¹ (expired) addresses the legal concepts of personal information protection and the right to privacy simultaneously, to which this article refers as the dual model, differing from the one-dimensional mode of privacy protection before. Subsequently, the “The Right to Privacy and the Protection of Personal Information,” a chapter of the newly issued Civil Code of the People's Republic of China's (“the Chinese Civil Code” hereafter), ascertains the dual model and details related provisions. It has been dubbed a landmark ruling of China's personal information protection, greatly boosting the modernization of China's civil system.Despite the many articles that discuss approaches to China's civil protections, little attention has been given to the fundamental question concerning what exactly encompasses the personal information protection and privacy to which these laws refer. Based on the regulations and applicability of the General Provisions of the Chinese Civil Code and the Chinese Civil Code, this paper explores the legal construction of personal information protection and privacy under Chinese legal orders, including the differences, similarities, and interplay between the two rights. By distinguishing the legal value, contents and remedial approaches, this paper concludes that the two rights are distinct but overlap. On one side, personal information protection is elevated to the status of a separate civil right in the legal context of China, rather than part of privacy. On the other side, tailored regulations should be establish according to the criteria of the nature of information, the extent of information processing, and the elements of damage when confronted with overlaps in the two rights in judicial practice. Thus, this paper provides a perspective from which to clarify the approaches to civil protection of personal information and privacy in China and a reference model for enactment of the Chinese Personal Information Protection Law in the future.     

个人信息权的体系化解释——兼论《个人信息保护法》的公法属性

《个人信息保护法》是数字时代个人信息保护的基本法。它采取了将个人信息权作为新兴公法权利的思路,确立了完整的个人信息权利保护体系,在个人信息保护问题上和《民法典》一起形成了公私法共同协力的进路。《个人信息保护法》以权利束的方式规定了个人信息主体的知情权、决定权、查阅权、复制权、更正权、删除权、可携带权和信息权利救济权等。《个人信息保护法》从立法依据、权利体系、条文设计和规制措施上都体现出鲜明的公法属性,这也可以从基本权利的双重面向和个人信息国家保护义务得到理论上的证成。这部法律是数字时代公法秩序的基石,它对公法边界的形塑仍需通过其实施来确立。     

论《劳动合同法》中的“劳动基准”

我国现行《劳动合同法》中包含了大量背离普通民事法律规则的劳动关系强行运行规则,但这些规则仍属于私法领域,与公法属性的劳动基准存在本质差别。由公权保障实施,是劳动基准的特征之一。将过多的单位义务纳入劳动监察的保障实施范围,分散了劳动基准的公权保护力度,因此,不宜将现行劳动监察事项作为劳动基准的判断依据。对劳动合同书面形式、二倍工资、经济补偿金、用工档案等具体制度规则的分析表明,我国《劳动合同法》中的大量强行规则并非劳动基准。虽然《劳动合同法》与劳动基准关系密切,但其中真正涉及劳动基准的规定并不多,仅在非典型劳动关系调整中略有提及,因此,制定单独的《劳动基准法》,仍有很大的制度空间。     

Global social media vs local values: Private international law should protect local consumer rights by using the public policy exception?

This article focuses on the relationship between forum selection clauses, choice of law clauses and data protection and privacy protection. In particular, it discusses the question whether and why jurisdiction and choice of law clauses used in the terms of social media providers should not be enforced against social media users located in a different jurisdiction. The article distinguishes between the contractual, private law analysis and the application of public policy as part of the private international law analysis. The contract law analysis is centred on doctrines such as unconscionability, which in turn examines issue such as fairness and overwhelming bargaining power of one party. By contrast, the public policy analysis in private international law focuses on fundamental rights, legality of contractual clauses according to the local law of the forum and the interests of justice. It is argued here that both aspects (contractual and public policy doctrines) are paramount for achieving not only justice between the parties of a dispute but also ensuring good administration of justice in the public interest.     

《民法典》背景下跨国姓名权法律选择的完善

自然人姓名问题涉及不同的法律领域。2020年我国《民法典》第四编第三章为自然人姓名问题提供了最新的实体法保护规则。早在11年前,我国《涉外民事关系法律适用法》(以下简称《法律适用法》)就已对自然人姓名问题作出了规定。在国际私法中,个人姓名面临的基本问题是法院地国应适用何种连结点以确定涉外个人姓名的准据法。我国《法律适用法》第15条和第46条分别对涉外姓名确定和变更问题、涉外姓名侵权问题规定了法律选择规则,同时第5条对涉外姓名法律选择设立了不得违反我国公共秩序的最低界限。然而,我国对姓名国际私法规则采取“归并”的立法模式,没有对跨国姓名权法律选择和其他涉外人格权法律选择进行区别处理,未回应我国《民法典》姓名权在人格权领域的特殊性,而且忽略了《民法典》第1056条婚后夫妻姓名的平等价值和第1112条允许灵活选择被收养儿童姓名的立法意旨。虽然我国《法律适用法》姓名国际私法规则与《民法典》姓名实体法规则存在明显的差异,但二者互为补充。我国《法律适用法》有必要随着《民法典》的实施而对涉外姓名国际私法规则予以相应的变革。     

略论物权法与被拆迁人权益的保护

《物权法》树立了平等保护私权的理念，明确了征收拆迁应予补偿及补偿的原则，有利于被拆迁人权益的保护。征收是一个行政法律关系，拆迁补偿则应是一个民事法律关系。应在《物权法》中明确国家是征收及征收补偿的唯一主体，进一步完善征收补偿的原则，以真正落实《物权法》的私权保护观念，切实雏护被拆迁人的合法权益。     

物权法中的公法问题

以保护私人财产权为宗旨的物权法，其颁布在全社会引起了极大的反响。本文从公法的视角。围绕物权法的内容，对物权与财产权的关系、物权平等保护、公权力对物权的保护及可能的侵害、国家征收征用补偿制度中的公共利益等问题进行分析，希望对物权法有深刻的认识和思考。     

从人权保障视角看我国《疫苗管理法》的制度设计

2019年12月1日,由第十三届全国人大常委会第十一次会议表决通过的《中华人民共和国疫苗管理法》正式实施。该法是基于近些年来发生的多起假劣疫苗事件为社会背景,回应社会关切而制定的旨在加强疫苗监管,保证疫苗质量,保护接种对象特别是婴幼儿的生命健康,维护社会公共卫生安全的一部专门性法律。该法设计了严密的制度体系,设置了一系列的制度规则,体现了"四个最严",是我国药品领域最严的管理法。从人权角度看,它不仅是一部《疫苗管理法》,更是一部人权保障法。     

我国侵权责任法的侵权构成模式——以“民事权益”的定位与功能分析为中心

依国内学术界多数观点,由于侵权责任法没有对权益进行区分保护,所以我国侵权责任法的侵权构成模式属于法国法模式。但是否将民事权益作为侵权责任构成要件的判断要素,才是法国法模式与德国法模式的本质区别。我国侵权责任法契合未来民法典的整体布局,明文以民事权益作为侵权责任成立的判断要素,在立法模式上属于德国法模式。但在适用层面,德国法模式未必是一个很好的选择。侵权责任法（尤其是第2条）的独特规定及特色不同于德国法,并缺少与德国民法典第823条第2款和第826条类似的法规范支撑。可依“欧洲侵权法原则”提出的“弹性制度”解释权益的区分保护问题。     

Body scanners versus privacy and data protection

In recent history, the world has experienced dramatic events which have had a substantial effect on the balance between human rights protection and security measures. Body scanners installed at airports are intended to protect our lives. But at the same time they have a serious impact on privacy and data protection. The international legislation allows limiting people’s rights and freedoms, but only if it is in accordance with the law and is proportionate and necessary for national security, public safety and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Do body scanners respect these principles? The article examines the current situation, its background and future prospects. It discusses and analyzes the key terms and legal instruments, problems, disputes and proposed “safeguards”. The work concludes by pointing out the unlawfulness of current regimes and sets forth perspective on the possible solutions.     

邓恩伯格论私法体系及债权物权的区分

邓恩伯格将私法权利主要分为财产权与关于人的权利;其中财产权包括了债权与物权,而继承权虽然并非财产权,但也是财产移转的方式,因此也在此论述;关于人的权利则包括人格权与亲属权。与此相应,其私法体系由总则、物权法、债法、人法———亲属法、继承法五部分组成。他还将债权与物权的区分主要建立在客体的不同之上。可以看出,邓恩伯格比较忠实地继承了萨维尼所构造的体系。     

论物权法调整空域使用权的合理性

我国《物权法》没有明确规定空域所有权,但是应当解释为承认了空域所有权的存在。现行法律没有认可空域使用权的物权属性,只能认为空域使用权是行政许可利益。但行政许可机制的运行与效率价值旨趣相悖,其产生的产权不确定性不利于空域高效利用。市场机制和私权制度的引入是改革的重要方向。国家所有权具有私权属性,空域所有权也不例外,而空域使用权是空域所有权基于权能分离产生的权利,只能具有私权属性。这种定性在价值上也具有合理性,这主要是基于市场机制对空域利用效率的保障作用以及私权属性对市场机制顺畅运作的支撑地位。在私权体系中,将空域使用权规定为物权最为妥当。     

民事权益受损者行政诉讼原告资格考辨

民事权益受损者本应通过民事诉讼获得救济,一旦其请求行政机关介入查处违法行为或解决民事纠纷时往往会引发行政诉讼原告资格问题.本文采实质诉权说认为,民事权益受损者起诉权的认定应以公法请求权为基础,故需以保护规范理论为工具探寻公法规范中是否包含保护私人利益的指向,而非简单以侵权行为影响论或行政行为影响论判断受害者的行政诉讼原...     

论隐私权的刑法保护

隐私权的刑法保护顺应了我国保护人权的发展趋势;体现了我国刑法由"国家主义"向"人本主义"的转变;符合防治严重侵犯隐私权行为的客观要求.我国刑法典保护隐私权的相关规定缺乏系统性和科学性,具有间接性.建议我国刑法设立"非法获取、散布隐私罪".