银行危机处置过程中的股东权利限制研究

银行危机处置过程中股东权利限制是危机时期社会规制的需要,规制的原因包括维护金融稳定、预防系统性风险的发生、维护存款者的市场信心和预防股东道德风险发生。但股东权利保护是现代企业制度的核心内容,这就在"限制"与"保护"之间形成矛盾,这是银行生存的不同时期,股东行使权利正当性基础的差别造成的。因此,分析银行运行不同时期股东权行使的正当性基础,是论证银行危机处置期股东权利限制必要性的基础,同时,股东权利的限制必然影响到公司治理中利益相关主体间的权利结构平衡,故从法律规制和银行公司治理结构调整两个方面对"矛盾"的协调提出完善的建议。     

论治理“过度医疗”涉及的若干法律问题

“过度医疗”涉及多种因素，依法治理应是根本的途径。本文在界定“过度医疗”构成要件的基础上，探讨了所涉及的相关法律问题，包括法律规范的健全、患者权利的保护及新型医疗模式的构建等。     

科技法律责任的特性与制度优化

科学技术在为人类社会带来便利的同时也带来了许多科技风险.在风险社会中完善的科技法律责任对科技社会法律治理、科技法律体系化建设、传统法律责任体系突破、科技强国建设以及科学技术标准化发展都具有重要意义.通过对中国现有主要科技基本法律文本的分析,可以看出中国现行科技法律责任体现为三大传统法律责任的综合,且其中行政法律责任占据...     

On the Rights Protection of Vulnerable Groups Under the Prevention and Control of a Public health Crisis: A Literature Review and Perspective for Future Directions

The legal system for prevention and control of a public health crisis rests on two pillars: human rights protection and good governance. This duality is well illustrated by substantively equal treatment of vulnerable groups in a pandemic from the perspectives of public service, social inclusion, accessible environment, gender equality, and right to health. A review of literature on this topic shows that current research needs to address the gap between “life supremacy” and “equal protection” in the area of human rights protection, and the gap between “putting people first” and “strict control at the grassroots level” in the area of good governance. The research should employ intersectional methodology to highlight the rights logic of the socialist legal system and the key role of the Communist Party of China’s leadership in balancing individual versus community rights, enhancing the governance capability for participation by multiple social agents, ensuring equal protection for disadvantaged groups, promoting inclusive and sustainable development, and realizing the common prosperity of all the people.     

Corporate governance and financial development: a study of the French case

This paper belongs to the growing body of the “Law and finance” literature based on time-series study. It carries out an empirical investigation of the role of corporate governance in financial development. We focus on French corporate governance reforms in order to examine whether these reforms are consistent with the reorganization of the French financial system, which took place during the period 1977–2004. This research aims at evaluating one proposition of the legal origin claims based on the idea that there is a strong and stable relationship between legal origin, investor protection and financial system. A key question the study addresses is how corporate governance rules and the French financial development have changed over time. Our study suggests that indicators related to investors’ rights (shareholders, employees, and bondholders) have been increasing over time, despite the specific legal origin of the French system. On the contrary the creditors’ rights have followed a less clear trend. Our econometric investigation is fairly new as the Law and finance literature has not until now provided corporate governance indicators suitable for French legislation. From that perspective, our work undergoes a multiple criteria analysis of corporate governance reforms. Following this approach, we suggest that the causality links between changes in the French legal environment and financial growth in France are more bidirectional than unidirectional.     

“大数据杀熟”行为政府治理路径探讨

“大数据杀熟”行为严重损害了消费者权益。相对于传统商业“杀熟”行为,“大数据杀熟”行为更隐蔽,消费者维权更艰难。这种利用算法应用技术损害消费者权益的行为严重违背商业伦理,不仅关乎消费者个人权益,更会影响公共利益,仅凭市场调节难以纠正,需要通过法律进行救济。政府应在遵循辅助性原则的前提下,通过算法应用技术备案、建立“政府-社会”合作规制等制度,用新制度规制新技术,更好地发挥政府在治理“大数据杀熟”行为过程中的作用,保护消费者权益和社会公共利益。     

数据治理法律路径的反思与转进

数据已成为数据经济的重要生产要素和企业之间竞相争夺的战略资源。当前数据法律规范体系正处在理论构建阶段,数据法律规范严重滞后于数据产业的发展,并引发诸多的数据纠纷。理论上,依靠传统财产权路径,尤其是创设绝对权性质的数据财产权成为数据治理的主要选择,但此路径面临着诸多问题,新型数据财产权的构建仍前途未卜。数据治理合同路径更契合当前数据经济的发展,在实现数据流通与商业模式创新上更具灵活性,其本质是数据许可合同的规范问题,应成为数据治理的重要法律路径。我国数据治理合同路径应当构建以数据许可合同为一类典型合同作为数据时代的基础合同,并参照国外相关立法实现此类合同的专门立法。     

The flip side of ISP’s liability regimes: The ambiguous protection of fundamental rights and liberties in private digital spaces

Since the inception of the Internet, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been used to segment cyberspace and make it possible for national states to apply their local laws to conduct having effects within their borders. This is true in particular in the realm of intellectual property. When one looks at the national regulatory regimes supposedly framing the behavior of ISPs, there appear to be more similarities than differences at a first glance. Does this mean that the national or regional legal frameworks regulating the behavior of ISPs, which are increasingly considered to be the sword of public authorities, should be identical in all legal systems? Is it not true that the content of these national or regional legal frameworks regulating the behavior of ISPs should partly depend upon the local trade-offs among conflicting fundamental rights and liberties? Indeed, private power can jeopardize the exercise and the very core of individuals’ prerogatives as much as public power and priorities vary from one legal system to another. This paper therefore seeks to highlight the dependence of national regulatory modes framing the conduct of ISPs upon the strength of certain fundamental rights and liberties. More precisely, while the first part aims to explore the influence of certain fundamental rights and liberties upon the regulatory modes set up by national legislators, and in particular free speech, from the perspective of the user-to-user relationship, the second part of this article is devoted to the protection of these fundamental rights and liberties from the perspective of the intermediary-to-user relationship. It shows that at least within two legal systems the dependence described initially is in reality altered by the prevalence of the intermediary’s interests, even if the latter are in part affected by a recent trend towards more state interventionism. As a result, national solutions appear to be less innovative than foreseen.     

平等保护请求权研究

平等保护请求权是一种公法上的请求权 ,是公民在遭受公权力的不公平对待后请求公法救济的基本权利 ,平等保护机制正是以此为基础而建立的。我国尚未承认公民广泛的平等保护请求权 ,因而受限于狭隘的行政诉讼范围 ,以致大量的公权力“歧视现象”无法通过法律途径加以解决 ,公民权利无法获得法律的平等保护。面对制度缺漏与问题叠出的困境 ,我国应以公民的平等保护请求权为基础 ,以立法机关的违宪审查与司法机关的行政诉讼制度为主要载体 ,建构符合我国法律体制的平等保护机制     

行政法治视野中的民法典

民法典时代的行政法治面临新的发展契机。民法典直接为行政机关新设了职权行使的依据、划定了职权行使的边界,为人民法院行政审判活动提供了新的准据,从而拓展了依法行政之法的属性。作为民事权利行政保护的规范依据,民法典对行政机关提出了权利消极性保护、积极性保护和创造性保护的三层义务结构要求,有助于实现权利自救与他救、私法保护请求权与公法保护请求权的有机统一。作为行政法法典化的参照系,法律概念的清晰界定和科学分类、篇章结构的逻辑严密是民法典抽象化、类型化和体系化的表征。回归行政法基础理论研究、构建新时代中国特色行政法释义学,是民法典时代我国行政法治发展的基础性工程。     

论公民参与政府治理的法律保障

广泛而深刻的公民参与能够反映不同权益主体的利益和价值.然而,公民参与政府治理仅有政治上的认同还不够,作为法治国家还必须提供相应的法律保障.公民参与政府治理的法律保障包括,主体的法律保障、客体的法律保障和形式途径的法律保障,当下中国最为重要的是参与主体和形式的法律保障.因为没有对利益相关方和弱势群体参与权的法律保障,政府治理的公民参与只能是符号和口号.     

基本权利限制的合宪性基准

尽管美、德两国违宪审查基准因各自的法律价值取向、权利保护政策和法律传统不同而有所区别,表述方式也存在差异,但各国从形式和实质上的考量因素是基本一致的。这些因素包括确立基本权利限制之合宪性基准的本体论因素,如基本权利的类型、构成;关联论因素,如法治传统、司法政策;以及方法论因素,如基本权利限制的目的、手段和结果等。希望所整合出的基本权利限制之合宪性的基准体系,对我国的立法合宪性审查有所助益。     

功能转向抑或教义坚守:应急状态下刑事司法的实践和规范

突发事件应急治理是一个全局性的工作,需要各部门法在治理目的的统摄下相互协调、综合应对。无论从刑事法律体系功能化转向还是应急治理对国家权力、个人权利的重新塑造来看,刑事司法基于应急治理需求的应变具有当然正当性。然而突发事件带来的情势急转,存在刑事法律滑向工具主义、应急目的的非理性反应和对应急权力制约弱化的潜在风险,这就要求刑事法律在适用过程中严守人权保障底线,在充分考量集体法益共识形成过程和精准判断特殊法益侵害的情形下,谨慎、规范地适用刑事法律规范。     

Adherence to the Law-Based Protection of Human Rights and Improvement of the Legal Guarantee Mechanism of Human Rights

XI Jinping, General Secretary of Central Committee of the Communist Party of China(CPC), made an important speech (Speech) on China’s path of advancement of human rights at a group study session of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee on February 25, 2022. Adherence to law-based protection of human rights and improvement of the legal mechanism of protection of human rights are important requirements for firmly following China’s path of human rights development. To improve the law-based mechanism of guarantee of human rights, the principles of respecting the people’s principal position and removing systematic and institutional barriers should be adhered to. The Constitution should be comprehensively implemented to promote record and review of new laws presented by legislatures, and to safeguard its authority. Innovations of human rights theory should be accelerated, along with faster construction of a human rights academic system, of a human rights academic system, and of a human rights discourse system, for meeting China’s needs in the new era. A sound legal mechanism of guarantee for human rights can better guarantee people’s better life. Furthermore, China should actively participate in global human rights governance and make appropriate contributions.     

行政法上请求权的理论构造

公法请求权根源于并服务于基础性公法权利,但具备独立实体权利的要素,具有相对的独立性。确保或回复基础性公法权利不受干扰状态的干扰防御请求权和作为受益权核心内容的给付请求权是公法请求权的两种典型形态。公法请求权的确认和保护,对基础性公法权利的实现具有重要意义,只有实现对公法请求权的全面保护,方可实现对基础性公法权利的全面保护。我国应当通过立法和司法的革新措施促进公法请求权的行政法制保护,以提升公法权利的行政法保障水平：一方面,行政立法应当树立对公法请求权予以直接立法确认的理念;另一方面应通过行政诉讼制度的改革促进公法请求权的司法保护。     

法学意义上的社会弱势群体概念

对社会弱势群体概念的理解和认识不应当局限于社会学领域。因为那只是对社会弱势群体的多元化解释中的一种。既然法律是调控人类社会生活的主要规则 ,社会弱势群体就必然需要法律的调整、帮助和保护。那么 ,从法学的角度对社会弱势群体进行解释就并非毫无意义。在法学中 ,社会弱势群体是指由于社会条件和个人能力等方面存在障碍而无法实现其基本权利 ,需要国家帮助和社会支持以实现其基本权利的群体。因此 ,社会弱势群体概念的外延决定于现时社会中被人们认可的基本权利。同时社会弱势群体并不是严格意义上的比较性概念 ,而是身分性概念。     

分配正义与收益公正分配

收益公正分配是转型时期社会公正的重要维度,维系人权保护、经济发展、社会稳定与国家治理,蕴涵着分配正义理论。多种因素决定经济法分配正义是复合正义,强化在市场分配机制基础上的国家再分配职能,以促进社会基本结构的公正。经济法分配正义理论通过奠定收益分配之理论基础,提供收益分配之制度属性的路径促进收益公正分配,进而实现以社会公正为中心的可持续经济发展,推动中国社会顺利转型。而以分配正义为衡量尺度,我国收益分配制度需要进一步完善。     

Legal Environment,Firm-level Corporate Governance and Expropriation of Minority Shareholders in Asia

Claessens et al. (2000, Journal of Financial Economics 58(1–2), 81–112) show that corporate control is substantially enhanced by using pyramid structures and cross-holdings by firms in nine East Asian countries. Claessens et al. (1999, SSRN Working Paper; 2002, Journal of Finance 57(2), 2741–2771) provide empirical evidence regarding expropriation arising from the separation of cash flow from voting rights in Asian firms. Their analysis suggests a high degree of expropriation in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. We re-examine the problem of expropriation in Asian firms reported by earlier research. We explore firm-level governance-control structure interactions, and control-legal environment interaction for a set of Asian firms for which we are able to obtain relevant data for all the required variables. The major contribution of this paper is that it jointly examines ownership-control structure, firm-level governance and country-level legal protection available to external suppliers of capital. Using post-crisis data, we find a strong country effect in governance. In general, high control firms in countries with weak legal protection have lower firm-level governance scores in general. On the other hand, high control firms, in countries which have a stronger legal protection environment, signal their intention to not expropriate minority shareholders’ wealth by voluntarily adopting measures to strengthen their discipline and responsibility scores. Contrary to earlier findings, we do not find a relationship between control-ownership wedge and firm value. Furthermore, we do not find any relation between firm-level governance and firm value as measured by Tobin’s Q.     

论个人信息保护的行政规制路径

个人信息保护存在私法诉讼与行政规制两种主要路径,私法诉讼多以侵权之诉的形式展开。由于个人信息处理者与信息主体的地位失衡,信息主体举证困难,维权难度高;由于损害难以界定,诉讼存在成本与收益不均衡的激励困境;同时,个别性的诉讼也难以有效回应系统性的社会风险。行政规制路径以基本权利的国家保护义务作为法权基础,在专业性、信息充分程度、治理效率等方面具有比较优势。个人信息保护立法应当更妥善地处理两种路径的协调。未来个人信息保护的行政规制路径需要进一步明确规制体制,充分运用行政处罚、自我规制、内部管理型规制、第三方规制等多元化的规制机制。     

Contract Governance in the EU: Conceptualising the Relationship between Investor Protection Regulation and Private Law

The instrumental use of private law, in particular contract law, by the EU raises a complex issue concerning the relationship between contract‐related regulation and traditional private law and underlines the need for conceptualising the interplay between the two from the contract governance perspective. The present article aims to apply this new analytical approach in the investment services field where there is considerable tension between the EU investor protection regulation embodied in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID I and MiFID II) and national private laws. The article explores various models of relationship between investor protection regulation and traditional private law within a multi‐level EU legal order, considering the strengths and weaknesses of each field in pursuing public and private interests involved in financial contracting. This analysis also offers some lessons for the broader narrative of how European integration in regulated areas dominated by public supervision and enforcement could proceed.