试论行政复议制度的立法完善——解读《行政复议法实施条例》

行政复议作为一项解决行政争议的法律制度，在保护公民权利和监督行政权力方面发挥着重要的作用。但《行政复议法》实施以来，面临着诸多的困境，使行政复议制度难以发挥其应有的功效。2007年8月1日生效实施的《行政复议法实施条例》以追求行政复议制度的公正性为目的，在总结实践经验的基础上，对我国现行的行政复议制度进行了富有特色的立法完善。     

An international legal framework for data protection: Issues and prospects

The processing of personal data across national borders by both governments and the private sector has increased exponentially in recent years, as has the need for legal protections for personal data. This article examines calls for a global legal framework for data protection, and in particular suggestions that have been made in this regard by the International Law Commission and various national data protection authorities. It first examines the scope of a potential legal framework, and proceeds to analyze the status of data protection in international law. The article then considers the various options through which an international framework could be enacted, before drawing some conclusions about the form and scope such a framework could take, the institutions that could coordinate the work on it, and whether the time is ripe for a multinational convention on data protection.     

Access to advanced therapy medicinal products in the EU: where do we stand?

The European Union has a public health strategy and will generally ensure in all its policies and activities a "high level of human health protection". The new Regulation (EC) n 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP), stems from this global policy and aims to harmonise access to the ATMP market. A real will for the harmonisation is clearly expressed in legal texts and enforced in the implementable procedures and requirements. However, several barriers remain. On the one hand, the scope of the ATMP Regulation is limited. On the other hand, Member States benefit from a wide margin of action.     

Personal Data and the GDPR: Providing a Competitive Advantage for U.S. Companies

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became applicable in May 2018. Due to the GDPR's extraterritorial scope, which could result in massive fines for U.S. companies, comparative data privacy law is of great current interest. In June 2018, California passed its own Consumer Privacy Act, echoing some of the provisions of the GDPR. Despite the many articles comparing the two schemes of law, little attention has been given to the foundation of these laws, that is, what exactly encompasses the data referred to by these laws? By understanding how the term “personal data” or “personal information” is defined in both jurisdictions, and why these definitions and the treatment of protected data are so different, companies can strategize to take advantage of these developments in the European Union. After explaining the differences in how data is treated in the United States and the European Union by exploring the definitions, regulations, and court cases, we will explore the five legal strategy pathways that companies might pursue with respect to the legal aspects of data transfer and privacy law compliance. While these strategies range from ignoring the law to adopting the European model worldwide, this analysis of legal strategy reveals a means for companies to gain a competitive advantage through their adoption of a worldwide compliance scheme.     

SECURITIZATION OF CATASTROPHE INSURANCE RISK AND CATASTROPHE BONDS: EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS TO LEARN

It is reasonable to expect that catastrophe insurance system will be established in China in the near future, since it is one of the main topics in the Fourth National Finance Working Conference, and it is the first three working points of China Insurance Regulation Commission (CIRC) this year. Due to the high loss of catastrophe and incapacity of the insurance industry, securitization of catastrophe risk serves as a significant alternative risk tool for catastrophe insurance industry. This has been practiced in the U.S. since the mid-1990s and catastrophe bonds are perfect examples. In this paper, we will first introduce the practices and challenges of securitization of catastrophe risk in the U.S., especially the catastrophe bonds which have been the predominant form until now. And then, the author will use the supply-demand framework to analyze whether securitization of risk is feasible in China. However, due to the institutional shortcomings, including legal frame, regulatory institutions and so on, issuing the ILS will take quite a long time and a tough process in China.     

欧盟461/2004反倾销规则研究

2004年3月,欧盟颁布了461/2004反倾销规则,该规则是对欧盟现行反倾销基本条例的最新补充.该规则对欧盟原反倾销法律实体和程序方面进行的修改,充分体现了近年来国际上关于反倾销立法的潮流:反倾销作为WTO允许的贸易保护手段,其立法既应保证反倾销措施能有效地得以实施也应不断保持透明度.欧盟461/2004反倾销规则在这方面值得包括中国在内的其他WTO成员国借鉴.     

Genetic Data and the Data Protection Regulation: Anonymity,multiple subjects,sensitivity and a prohibitionary logic regarding genetic data?

Owing to the unique qualities of genetic data, there have been numerous criticisms of the current data protection framework's ability to protect genetic data. It has been suggested that the Directive did not recognise the sensitivity of genetic data and that it ignored a number of legitimate interests in this data (in particular interests which multiple data subjects may have and those which may remain in anonymous data). In 2012, the first results of a reform process of EU data protection law were released. These results included a draft Regulation (to replace the Directive) which introduced a new framework for the protection of genetic data. This Article considers whether the innovative approach to genetic data in the Regulation will provide a more adequate framework for the protection of genetic data. It concludes that the Regulation has rectified the lack of recognition of sensitivity, but still stutters in recognising a number of legitimate interests.     

Having yes,using no? About the new legal regime for biometric data

The rise of biometric data use in personal consumer objects and governmental (surveillance) applications is irreversible. This article analyses the latest attempt by the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the Directive (EU) 2016/680 to regulate biometric data use in the European Union. We argue that the new Regulation fails to provide clear rules and protection which is much needed out of respect of fundamental rights and freedoms by making an artificial distinction between various categories of biometric data. This distinction neglects the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and serves the interests of large (governmental) databases. While we support regulating the use and the general prohibition in the GDPR of using biometric data for identification, we regret this limited subjective and use based approach. We argue that the collection, storage and retention of biometric images in databases should be tackled (objective approach). We further argue that based on the distinctions made in the GDPR, several categories of personal data relating to physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics are made to which different regimes apply. Member States are left to adopt or modify their more specific national rules which are eagerly awaited. We contend that the complex legal framework risks posing headaches to bona fide companies deploying biometric data for multifactor authentication and that the new legal regime is not reaching its goal of finding a balance between the free movement of such data and protecting citizens. Law enforcement authorities also need clear guidance. It is questioned whether Directive (EU) 2016/680 provides this.     

我国反垄断法的司法制度构想

从一定意义而言,法律的实施是法律的生命.司法对法律的重要性是不言而喻的,反垄断法的司法制度建设对于反垄断法的实现有着特殊的意义.     

论我国反垄断法的价值与核心价值

<反垄断法>是一部经济大法,它的颁布和实施,对保护市场公平竞争,提高经济运行效率,维护消费者利益和社会公共利益,促进社会主义市场经济健康发展都具有重大的实践价值,在中国经济法发展史上具有里程碑意义.认识和科学评价<反垄断法>的价值,必须研究<反垄断法>的价值体系,特别是它的核心价值.     

我国《反垄断法》的特色制度、亮点制度及重大不足

作为一个参与了反垄断法草案审查修改工作的理论工作者,在反复研读<反垄断法>之后,我认为我国<反垄断法>有两大特点、三大特色制度、十大亮点制度、两个重大不足.     

社会本位观：反垄断法立足之本

作为规制现代市场经济秩序的新兴法律部门之一.反垄断法应19世纪末西方国家社会经济发展的现实需要而生,其实质是国家于生产社会化条件下主动地以"公权力"矫治、干预市场主体竞争行为的产物.那么,在市场经济运行中,反垄断法应基于什么样的本位观发挥着其应有功效?笔者认为,在经济、市场社会化的背景下,反垄断法理应以社会为本位,规范竞争行为、营造良好有序的竞争环境、平衡市场主体之间的利益,进而达至国民经济的健康发展.     

Treating or Tracking? Regulatory Challenges of Nano‐Enabled ICT Implants

The increasing commercialisation of human ICT implants has generated debate over the ethical, legal, and social implications of their use. The convergence of nanotechnologies with ICT is likely to further challenge the current legal frameworks that regulate them. The aim of this article is to examine the effectiveness of the European data protection legal framework for regulating this “next generation” of nano‐enabled ICT human implantable devices. The article highlights the potential regulatory challenges posed by the applications and makes a series of recommendations as to how the current European legal framework on data protection will respond to them.     

知识产权行使行为的反垄断法规制——《反垄断法》第55条的理解与适用

一、<反垄断法>第55条的意义重大 我国<反垄断法>在附则第55条确立了对知识产权行使行为进行反垄断法规制的基本原则,具有非常重要的意义.     

反垄断法对产业政策的拾遗补缺作用

中国<反垄断法>第7条规定:"国有经济占控制地位的关系国民经济命脉和国家安全的行业以及实行专营的行业,国家对其经营者的合法经营活动予以保护,并对经营者的经营行为及其商品和服务的价格依法实施监管和调控,维护消费者利益,促进技术进步.""前款规定行业的经营者应当依法经营,诚实守信,严格自律,接受社会公众的监督,不得利用其控制地位或者专营地位损害消费者利益."第7条所说的行业,也就是我们通常所说的管制行业,如通讯、铁路、石油,等等.对这些行业的管制又代表了我国对这些行业的产业政策.从这一角度上,行业管制与产业政策只是一个问题的不同称谓而已,侧重点不同,但实质一样.因此,<反垄断法>第7条提供了处理产业政策与反垄断法关系的原则.     

《反垄断法》与社会主义市场经济

一、反垄断法是现代市场经济的守护神 反垄断法是高级的市场经济之法,<中华人民共和国反垄断法>的出台,标志着社会主义市场经济及其法治在我国进入了一个新的发展阶段.它让每一个关心国家发展、民族复兴大业的人长长地舒了一口气.     

论反垄断法与行业监管法的协调关系

反垄断法与行业监管法的协调关系问题是我国反垄断立法的一个重要难题,在<反垄断法>实施之际,对于这个难题我们无法回避.笔者认为,论述反垄断法与行业监管法的协调关系,实际上应该协调好三个方面的关系:反垄断法与规制行业的关系;反垄断法与行业监管法的关系;反垄断执法机构与行业监管机构的关系.     

The Proposed ‘Common European Sales Law’: Legal Framework and the Agreement of the Parties

The European Commission's Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (‘CESL’) seeks to create a European scheme of contract law available for parties to choose to govern cross‐border contracts for the sale of goods, supply of ‘digital content,’ and for the supply of related services. This article explains the background to the Proposal, sketches out the purposes and scope of the CESL, and considers and criticises its legal framework (and in particular its relationship with private international law) and the key requirement of the parties’ agreement. In the author's view, the CESL scheme remains an unconvincing basis for the achievement of its economic purposes and, as regards consumer contracts, puts too much reliance on the agreement of the consumer as a justification for the loss of their existing protection under EU private international law rules.     

EU GDPR or APEC CBPR? A comparative analysis of the approach of the EU and APEC to cross border data transfers and protection of personal data in the IoT era

This article examines the two major international data transfer schemes in existence today – the European Union (EU) model which at present is effectively the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Cross Border Privacy Rules system (CBPR), in the context of the Internet of Things (IoT).While IoT data ostensibly relates to things i.e. products and services, it impacts individuals and their data protection and privacy rights, and raises compliance issues for corporations especially in relation to international data flows. The GDPR regulates the processing of personal data of individuals who are EU data subjects including cross border data transfers. As an EU Regulation, the GDPR applies directly as law to EU member nations. The GDPR also has extensive extraterritorial provisions that apply to processing of personal data outside the EU regardless of place of incorporation and geographical area of operation of the data controller/ processor. There are a number of ways that the GDPR enables lawful international transfer of personal data including schemes that are broadly similar to APEC CBPR.APEC CBPR is the other major regional framework regulating transfer of personal data between APEC member nations. It is essentially a voluntary accountability scheme that initially requires acceptance at country level, followed by independent certification by an accountability agent of the organization wishing to join the scheme. APEC CBPR is viewed by many in the United States of America (US) as preferable to the EU approach because CBPR is considered more conducive to business than its counterpart schemes under the GDPR, and therefore is regarded as the scheme most likely to prevail.While there are broad areas of similarity between the EU and APEC approaches to data protection in the context of cross border data transfer, there are also substantial differences. This paper considers the similarities and major differences, and the overall suitability of the two models for the era of the Internet of Things (IoT) in which large amounts of personal data are processed on an on-going basis from connected devices around the world. This is the first time the APEC and GDPR cross-border data schemes have been compared in this way. The paper concludes with the author expressing a view as to which scheme is likely to set the global standard.