论自救行为

自救行为是一种从行为人既有的权利中派生出来的维权行为,属于权利的私力救济,是对公力救济的必要补充,能够实现刑法的公正与效益的统一。由于自救行为是一种私力救济方式,存在着被滥用的可能性,因此应对其进行一些必要的限制。本文从自救行为的概念、构成要件以及我国对自救行为刑事立法的必要性等方面进行了较为深入的分析。     

论正当防卫的权利分析——兼议死刑的存废

正当防卫是由公民的个人行为和国家的特殊授权组成。国家特殊授权是权利救济,是公力救济;公民个人行为是行为救济,是私力救济。因此,正当防卫是公力救济与私力救济相结合的产物。更为特殊的是,正当防卫表现出权利与行为的相对运动,其权利救济是国家刑罚权对公民权利的救济,是公权对私权的自上而下的补充,其权利的运行方向是下行的;而其私力救济是公民防卫行为对国家刑罚的补充,是私力行为对国家行为的自下而上的补充,其行为的运行方向是上行的。     

民事诉权制度:一种私权的公力救济

民事诉权作为私权的公力救济路径集中展现了宪法的永恒命题,它涉入私权空间范围及其程度折射出私力救济与公力救济之间的辩证博弈;民事诉权介入私权空间的正当性源于私力救济的有限性和公力救济的有效性;民事诉权介入私权空间的程度决定于私力救济的有效性和公力救济的有限性;在宪法框架内私力救济和公力救济达致和谐的配比。     

论防止知识产权滥用的制度理念

对知识产权滥用的认识,应当构建在清晰梳理知识产权行使行为与知识产权滥用行为之关系的基础上.它们两者之间虽有联系,但决然不能简单等同,因为超越知识产权权利范围行使权利的行为不是滥用行为,知识产权垄断行使行为是否构成滥用需要依其是否具有正当性而做出判断,知识产权不当行使行为与滥用行为有着本质不同.防止知识产权滥用,需要制度理性的思考.防止知识产权滥用的制度理念主要有二:一是在法律正义的基础上解决知识产权的利益冲突.我们需要对利益冲突与法律正义做出正确的判断,我们也需要在利益实现与秩序安全之间寻找衡平点;二是在私权基础上关注知识产权的社会功能.现代社会不仅需要高扬私权保护的旗帜,同时亦需要更多地关注权利的社会功能,尤其需要关注社会发展与知识产权社会功能的强化之间的关系.     

平台责任与私权力

网络平台是网络空间“生态系统”中的基本单元、重要枢纽和关键节点.在网络平台的“生态”中,不同的私主体事实上处于不同的地位,进而形成了不同特征的法律关系.通过分析这些法律关系框架中的私权力现象,继而探讨私权力的规制机制,可以更加清晰地认识平台责任的基础和边界.     

关于滥用软件技术保护措施行为的刑法思考

“微软黑屏事件”引发了众多的社会思考，实质上这是一种滥用软件技术保护措施对于用户计算机信息系统安全的损害行为，此种企业“私力救济”型非法制裁个人用户的行为在过去20年内屡次发生，微软公司的行为只是再一次引发了社会的广泛关注。严重的软件技术保护措施滥用行为具有严重的社会危害性，应当由刑法对其进行评价。对于现行刑法体系下如何应对和制裁软件技术保护措施滥用行为，并从刑法面前人人平等层面上来思考信息资料保护体系上的平等原则，进而思考将滥用软件技术保护措施的行为单独入罪化的可能性，有着现实意义。     

政府干预与市场运行之间的防火墙

滥用行政权力排除和限制竞争是中国市场经济发展的重大障碍。它实际上是一种公、私权力结合谋取不当利益的反竞争行为。消除行政垄断的过程就是国家不断改善政府经济职能，维护经济民主的过程。因此，在政府对经济的行政干预和市场机制之间设立防火墙是十分必要的。反垄断法对滥用行政性垄断行为进行直接规制是一种有效的制度安排，已成为各国竞争法治的共同趋势。中国《反垄断法》以专章规定行政性垄断行为，创立了反垄断立法史上独特的模式。这不仅是我国深化市场经济体制、加快行政体制改革的重要举措，也是经济民主制度走向更加健全的必要法治保障。     

自救行为论

自救行为是一种排除社会危害性的正当行为,其在现实生活中存在颇多但刑法理论界对其涉及甚少.由于自救行为是一种私力救济方式,存在着被滥用的可能性,因此应对其构成要件严加限制.关于自救行为排除犯罪性的根据,应从自救行为是公力救济的重要补充和自救行为有利于实现刑法的公正和效益两个方面来论证.     

论民事权利的内容与行使的限制——兼议我国《民法总则(草案)》相关规定的完善

民法借助于民事权利的管道而赋予人民以权利或私权,由此,包括民法总则在内的整个民法典成为权利的法和人民的权利宣言.20世纪以来,对民事权利的内容与行使加以限制及规定权利的私力救济成为各国的普遍做法,我国现今也产生了这些方面的客观需要.我国《民法总则(草案)》未对此等内容予以规定,是立法上的重要缺漏,应予弥补.民法主要经由公共利益(社会福祉)原则对民事权利的内容予以限制,并通过公共利益(社会福祉)原则、诚实信用原则及权利滥用的禁止原则等限制民事权利的行使.为了保障民事权利,立法宜允许私力救济,即正当防卫、紧急避险和自助行为,其中前两者为自卫行为,后者为自力救助.     

公权与私权的博弈——以房屋拆迁为例

在城市房屋拆迁实践中公权与私权不和谐,且法律利益协调机制不健全,政府机构为了自身的部门利益或者执法的便利对"公共利益"做便于自己的解释,在某种程度上滥用了行政权,强制拆迁已经引发了行政权力对公民私权包括自由权、财产权、生存权的严重侵犯,出现了一些暴力抗法的流血事件,造成了非常恶劣的社会影响。为此,有必要明确界定公共利益,在公共利益平衡视角下,用法律规范的手段规制公权以期保障私权。故采取的策略可以是在法律规范中明确规定私权的法律地位,对法律规范中强制拆迁相互抵触的条款进行修改,并设置严格的程序规制房屋强制拆迁行为,增加政府强制拆迁违法行为的成本。在公共利益的范围内以实现公权与私权的和谐。     

平台视角中的社会信用治理及其法律规制

在大数据时代,无论是企业还是政府都逐渐走向平台化。依托于数字技术的发展,以声誉为核心的信用治理在平台治理中发挥了重要作用。对于商业平台而言,信用治理可以高效地管理平台上的生产和交易行为,减少国家权力的介入;对于政府平台而言,信用治理不仅可以减少执法成本,还可以促进国家内部权力的整合,并促使国家权力进一步向社会领域延伸。但是,由于缺乏有效规制,信用治理在商业领域存在着评价黑箱化、商业化和垄断化的公平性问题。在公共管理领域,信用治理在信用信息平台建设、政府内部权力整合、数据收集和使用等方面都面临着挑战。对此,法律规制应该以整体制度设计、市场结构调整和优化规制手段为导向,并从限制信用评价的适用范围、引入多元治理模式和培育国家数据能力等方面实现对信用治理的具体规制。     

垄断法下的相关数据市场研究

数据是互联网平台经济的利润中心与关键驱动力.在对平台经济的反垄断审查中,相关机构很少将数据要素纳入审查分析范围.平台经济的反垄断审查分析中需重新审视数据要素的价值.互联网平台是在线经济结构的最有影响力的参与者.与传统的管道业务模型不同,平台市场是多方且相互依存的市场.追求规模化意味着平台须尽一切努力获取数据资源.数据不但有利于改善平台的获利能力,还有利于促进平台业务模型创新.数据市场垄断可能引发进入障碍、隐私侵害和消费者利益损害等.遏制数据市场力对市场竞争的损害需将数据要素纳入反垄断审查范围.在反垄断分析中应将数据市场视为整体.在定义数据市场力时,应考虑数据的市场份额以及收集与处理数据的能力.     

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.     

A forensic examination of four popular cross‐platform file‐sharing apps with Wi‐Fi P2P

File‐sharing apps with Wi‐Fi hotspot or Wi‐Fi Direct functions become more popular. They can work on multiple platforms and allow users to transfer files in a concealed manner. However, when criminals use these apps in illegal activities, it becomes an important issue for investigators to find digital evidence on multiple platforms. At present, there are few studies on this topic, and most of them are limited to the single platform problem. In this paper, we propose a forensic examination method for four popular cross‐platform file‐sharing apps with Wi‐Fi hotspot and Wi‐Fi Direct functions: Zapya, SHAREit, Xender, and Feem. We use 22 static and live forensic tools for 11 platforms to acquire, analyze, and classify the forensic artifacts. In our experiments, we find many useful forensic artifacts and classify them into six categories. The experimental results can support law enforcement investigations of digital evidence and provide information for future studies on other cross‐platform file‐sharing apps.     

Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators

A series of recent developments highlight the increasingly important role of online platforms in impacting data privacy in today's digital economy. Revelations and parliamentary hearings about privacy violations in Facebook's app and service partner ecosystem, EU Court of Justice judgments on joint responsibility of platforms and platform users, and the rise of smartphone app ecosystems where app behaviour is governed by app distribution platforms and operating systems, all show that platform policies can make or break the enjoyment of privacy by users. In this article, we examine these developments and explore the question of what can and should be the role of platforms in protecting data privacy of their users.The article first distinguishes the different roles that platforms can have in ensuring respect for data privacy in relevant ecosystems. These roles include governing access to data, design of relevant interfaces and privacy mechanisms, setting of legal and technical standards, policing behaviour of the platform's (business) users, coordinating responsibility for privacy issues between platform users and the platform, and direct and indirect enforcement of a platform's data privacy standards on relevant players. At a higher level, platforms can also perform a role by translating different international regulatory requirements into platform policies, thereby facilitating compliance of apps in different regulatory environments. And in all of this, platforms are striking a balance between ensuring the respect for data privacy in data-driven environments on the one hand and optimization of the value and business opportunities connected to the platform and underlying data for users of the platform on the other hand.After this analysis of platforms’ roles in protecting privacy, the article turns to the question of what should this role be and how to better integrate platforms in the current legal frameworks for data privacy in Europe and the US. The article will argue for a compromise between direct regulation of platforms and mere self-regulation, in arguing that platforms should be required to make official disclosures about their privacy-related policies and practices for their respective ecosystems. These disclosures should include statements about relevant conditions for access to data and the platform, the platform's standards with respect to privacy and the way in which these standards ensure or facilitate compliance with existing legal frameworks by platform users, and statements with respect to the risks of abuse of different data sources and platform tools and actions taken to prevent or police such abuses. We argue that such integration of platforms in current regulatory frameworks is both feasible and desirable. It would make the role that platforms already have in practice more explicit. This would help to highlight best practices, create more accountability and could save significant regulatory and compliance resources in bringing relevant information together in one place. In addition, it could provide clarity for business users of platforms, who are now sometimes confronted with restrictive decisions by platforms in ways that lack transparency and oversight.     

How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications

Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users – including users-creators – can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content.As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators.This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users – Facebook, Instagram and YouTube – so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation.     

私权在行政执法中的地位——以一则行政案件为分析工具

传统观念认为,公共利益优先于私人利益。但在当前更加强调尊重和保护私权的背景下,该种观念的正当性值得进一步检讨,不能认为私权相对于公权始终处于附属地位。在特定情况下,行政权力依法行使的内涵中应包含尊重私权,国家公权在行使过程中应注意对民事主体私权利的保护。     

论劳动合同的私法性质及其法律适用

传统观点视劳动合同为公法性质的合同,在社会主义市场经济进一步发展和我国劳动制度进一步深化改革的今天,此观点有不合理之处。本文试图从批判“劳动合同公法论”入手,界定劳动合同的私法属性并解决其法律适用问题,以期能够完善我国的劳动合同制度,并将其与劳动法其它相关制度的改革和司法实践更好的衔接起来,真正解决实际问题,顺应社会主义市场经济的要求。     

The New City Regulators: Platform and Public Values in Smart and Sharing Cities

Cities are increasingly influenced by novel and cosmopolitan values advanced by transnational technology providers and digital platforms. These values which are often visible in the advancement of the sharing economy and smart cities, may differ from the traditional public values protected by national and local laws and policies. This article contrasts the public values created by digital platforms in cities with the democratic and social national values that the platform society is leaving behind. It innovates by showing how co-regulation can balance public values with platform values. In this article, we argue that despite the value-creation benefits produced by the digital platforms under analysis, public authorities should be aware of the risks of technocratic discourses and potential conflicts between platform and local values. In this context, we suggest a normative framework which enhances the need for a new kind of knowledge-service creation in the form of local public-interest technology. Moreover, our framework proposes a negotiated contractual system that seeks to balance platform values with public values in an attempt to address the digital enforcement problem driven by the functional sovereignty role of platforms.     

论治安要义

政治现象的背后终究可归结为利益和权利。对国家或政府权力的有效规制是法治的基本功能。构建和谐社会必须树立宪 法权威,建立违宪审查制度。制度的变革必然以生产力为基础,市场经济的发展是民主力量的源泉。要搭建平衡实体正义和程序正义 的框架。舆论监督是以民制权的重要手段。要建立健全强大的人民监督制约机制,扩大公民有序的政治参与,维护司法公正。