DATA REGULATION IN THE INTERNET OF THINGS

The reflections on data regulation in the internet of things (IoT) in this paper provide an overview of the different conceptions and legal problems of “data property rights.” Beginning with an overview of the existing and possible applications of the future IoT (in particular, smart cars), this paper describes the legal concerns that may arise because of increased commercialization of object-generated data. The author uses German and European Union law to illustrate the legal complexities, solutions, and shortcomings. He demonstrates how and to what extent these issues are covered by traditional data protection regulations and highlights the conceptual blind spots of these regulations. He then contrasts the data protection paradigm (de lege lata) with the idea of a general erga omnes data property right (de lege ferenda) and describes the most common understanding of such a right, that is, a data producers’ property right. Against the background of the possible economic advantages of general data property rights, the paper discusses conceptual problems and constitutional concerns. In conclusion, the author rejects the idea of a general data property right.     

On the Structure of Legal Principles

The author offers a sketch of his thesis that legal principles are optimization commands. He presents this thesis as an effort to capture the structure of weighing or balancing and to provide a basis for the principle of proportionality as it is applied in constitutional law. With this much in place, he then takes up some of the problems that have come to be associated with the optimization thesis. First, he examines the objection that there are no such things as principles, but only different modes of the application of norms. Second, he discusses problems concerning the concept of an optimization command and the character of the “ought” contained in principles. He concludes that the distinction between commands to optimize and commands to be optimized is the best method for capturing the nature of principles.     

The Americans with Disabilities Act as risk regulation.

Much disability based discrimination occurs because of fears that hiring or serving people with disabilities will pose a safety risk. Disability rights laws such as the ADA strictly regulate such risk-motivated discrimination. Many disability rights advocates and academic defenders of the ADA laud such laws as applying a "scientific" approach to risk rather than the "irrational" approach generally adopted by the public at large. That position is doubly strange: It stands in remarkable tension with disability rights advocates' general suspicion of "experts," and applies a technocratic approach to risk regulation-an approach that usually has politically conservative implications-to achieve the distinctly nonconservative goal of promoting the full integration of people with disabilities into our nation's economic and civic life. In this essay, Professor Bagenstos uses the problem of risk-motivated disability discrimination as a lens through which to examine the politics of risk regulation scholarship. He argues that the easy association of technocratic approaches with political conservatism-and of democratic approaches with political liberalism or progressivism-ignores the complex ways in which technocratic and democratic institutions may serve or disserve particular political interests.     

评财产权劳动学说

本文首先介绍了洛克的财产权劳动学说并略作评价。接着作者就知识产品作为财产权客体的新情况 ,指出财产权劳动理论也为知识产权的权利确定与保护提供了合法性基础。稍后 ,文章讨论了财产权的私有性质。最后 ,作者“重申自由主义 ,认为财产权劳动说本身以人为中心 ,过分强调法律社会化将会损害作为人类生存与发展基础的‘自由主义’”。     

Testing the limits of freedom of contract: the commercialization of reproductive materials and services

This article examines the cases for and against commercializing, or "commodifying," reproductive materials and services. Using a supply/demand third-party framework, three basic scenarios in which commercial-exchange relationships may be possible--exchange of gametes and zygotes, exchange of gestational services, and exchange of fetal material--and the major parties of interest, or stakeholders, are identified. The study sketches the liberal, essentialist, and radical contingency theories that shape the debate over the commercialization of reproductive materials and services. The article then attempts to derive some basic governing principles that reflect as much common ground as possible amongst these various normative perspectives, while recognizing that complete reconciliation is impossible. Taken together, these principles are designed to reflect a strategy of "constrained commodification," where commercialization or commodification, that is, financial remuneration, plays a relatively neutral role in the utilization of reproductive materials and services. In light of these principles, the article concludes by sketching legal and regulatory regimes with respect to the exchange of gametes and zygotes, gestational services, and fetal tissue.     

Religious perspectives on umbilical cord blood banking

Umbilical cord blood is a valuable source of haematopoietic stem cells. There is little information about whether religious affiliations have any bearing on attitudes to and decisions about its collection, donation and storage. The authors provided information about umbilical cord blood banking to expert commentators from six major world religions (Catholicism, Anglicanism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism) and asked them to address a specific set of questions in a commentary. The commentaries suggest there is considerable support for umbilical cord blood banking in these religions. Four commentaries provide moral grounds for favouring public donation over private storage. None attach any particular religious significance to the umbilical cord or to the blood within it, nor place restrictions on the ethnicity or religion of donors and recipients. Views on ownership of umbilical cord blood vary. The authors offer a series of general points for those who seek a better understanding of religious perspectives on umbilical cord blood banking.     

Whose body is it anyway? Human cells and the strange effects of property and intellectual property law

Whatever else I might own in this world, it would seem intuitively obvious that I own the cells of my body. Where else could the notion of ownership begin, other than with the components of the tangible corpus that all would recognize as "me"? The law, however, does not view the issue so neatly and clearly, particularly when cells are no longer in my body. As so often happens in law, we have reached this point, not by design, but by the piecemeal development of disparate notions that, when gathered together, form a strange and disconcerting picture. This Article examines both property and intellectual property doctrines in relation to human cells that are no longer within the body. In particular, the Article discusses the Bilski decision, in the context of life science process patents, and the Molecular Pathology case, in the context of gene patents. For patent law, the Article concludes that the problem lies not with the fact that genes constitute patentable subject matter, but rather with the extent of the rights that are granted. For both property and intellectual property law, the Article concludes that a more careful application of basic legal principles would better reflect the interests of society as a whole and the interests of individual human subjects, as well as the interests of those who innovate.     

布莱克斯通与美国财产法的个人绝对财产权观

布莱克斯通在其《英国法释义》中充分阐述了他的自然法学说,并在继承洛克个人自然财产权理论的基础上,提出了个人绝对财产权观念。且认为这种绝对财产权来源于"占有",进而提出劳动—占有理论。布莱克斯通的这种基于融入劳动的占有即产生个人绝对自然财产权的理论,对美国财产法自然权利理论的形成具有重大而深远的影响,并直接培植了美国财产法理念中的个人绝对财产权观。     

诉讼时效制度的二元价值——兼评我国诉讼时效制度的缺失

诉讼时效价值是法价值在民法领域的具体体现,对诉讼时效价值的认识与对民法的认识密切相关.目前,多数已发表文章缺乏对诉讼时效价值的全面认识,均集中于诉讼时效的公法价值.实际上,诉讼时效作为民法制度的组成部分之一,决定着对其价值的认识也应当从民法本身出发.诉讼时效的价值具有二元性:一方面,体现了国家对私权的干预;另一方面,也洋溢着对私权利的关怀.     

论作为财产权的水权

将水权客体——水资源的功能概括为生活功能、资源功能和环境功能,认为水权的财产权性质在水资源的不同功能区间中得到体现,其中水资源的生活功能对应的是作为宪法财产权的水权,水资源的资源功能对应的是作为民法财产权的水权,水资源的环境功能对应的是作为宪法财产权或共用财产权的水权。在此基础上,提出作为财产权的水权的实现机制及对我国水资源保护和利用的启示。     

Consent or Property? Dealing with the Body and its Parts in the Shadow of Bristol and Alder Hey

This article first considers the tenuous base on which the law of property in the body is founded, and then discusses the practical results of this in the light of the recent furore surrounding events at Bristol and Alder Hey. The authors suggest that neither the consent-based model followed by the official inquiries into these events nor a possible policy based on a full-blown property model adequately cover the private rights of an individual's next of kin or the right of the public to an efficient and reliable pathological service within the NHS. Rather, they propose that a combined model in which a 'cascade of possession' for the recognition of various property interests is initiated by assent on the part of the next of kin and terminates in full possession of the body vested in the executor for the purposes of its disposal. The authors recommend further that any reform of the law should apply property rights to body parts taken from both the living and the dead.     

Umbilical cord blood banking and the next generation of human tissue regulation: an agenda for research

The transformation of umbilical cord blood from being a waste product to being a valuable source of stem cells has led to the emergence of significant legal, ethical and social issues. This editorial proposes an agenda for research into the regulation of umbilical cord blood banking which focuses on issues of characterisation, consent, the interplay of public and private services, and the importance of applying property concepts. It concludes by stressing the need for reform to be based on well-informed public debate.     

Propertisation and Commercialisation: On Controlling the Uses of Human Biomaterials

Third parties, such as researchers and biotech companies, can and do legally acquire property rights in biomaterials. They are protected by the law of property in their use of these. Recent legal decisions have seen a move towards the tentative explicit recognition of some property rights in biomaterials vesting in the source of the materials. However, this recognition has not included income rights. This article discusses the interests that parties have in controlling the uses of biomaterials and the commercial interests that stem from those uses. The article argues that concerns regarding the allocation of property rights to the source generally elide property rights in biomaterials with the right to derive income from the transfer of those materials. Propertisation does not analytically entail commercialisation. It is therefore questionable whether it is reasonable to protect third parties' income rights, while excluding the source of the biomaterials from such protection.     

知识产权公权化理论的解读和反思

知识产权的权利属性是知识产权研究的基本理论问题.因传统的视知识产权为私权的观点在面对知识产权相较于其他私权的特殊性及其领域内层出不穷的新问题时常常遭遇无法解释的困境,所以,有些学者提出了"知识产权公权化"理论,即在承认知识产权私权本质属性的前提下,指出知识产权是公权化的私权,试图以此来寻到新的"突破口".但事实上,该理论因其立论依据本身就存在疑问,是经不起推敲的,它是在社会思潮运动影响下对知识产权权利客体特殊性的一种误读.知识产权作为私权的根本属性不应该因为知识产权所呈现出的某些独特性而被改变,在当前承认并且强调知识产权的私权属性具有重大意义.     

基本法的功能性与开放性及其启示——《联邦德国宪法纲要》读后

站在魏玛宪法肩上的德国基本法,在总统的宪法地位、宪法的守护者等方面吸取了魏玛宪法的失败教训,并使权利规范成为其核心规范。黑塞教授的《联邦德国宪法纲要》从功能性和开放性两个方面把基本法解析得入木三分。他认为,宪法的首要任务就是为国家构建一种功能性的政治统一体,而宪法如果试图将各种历史变迁情形下的问题都解决的话,就必须在内容上保持“向时代开放”。德国基本法的功能性与开放性可以说为我国的宪法改革指明了方向,而黑塞的这本宪法学教科书亦为我国宪法学的发展提供了宝贵的教义学路径,即注重分析宪法文本的功能性和开放性。     

Resuscitation of a Phantom? On Robert Alexy’s Latest Attempt to Save His Concept of Principle

This paper is my contribution to round three of a longstanding debate between Robert Alexy and me about the principles theory’s concept of principle. In the first round, Alexy—bucking tradition—proposed a nongradualist distinction between rules and principles that divided the ontology of norms into two categorically distinct norm‐types. He connected this norm‐theoretical analysis with a theory of fundamental rights according to which such rights had to be understood as principles and thus interpreted as optimization requirements. In the first round I objected to the norm‐theoretical assumptions and questioned the doctrinal merit of the principles theory approach. Unlike Alexy, I saw no merit in his notion of principle over and above optimization requirements, which by that time Alexy, too, regarded as rules. In round two, Alexy defended his concept of principle by taking refuge in the notion of an ideal ought, which he defined as a command to be optimized. In this second round, I criticized the new attempt to save his view of principles on the ground that the norms Alexy had in mind optimized not commands but states of affairs and thus were ordinary norms or rules according to the misguided taxonomy of the principles theory. Alexy opened round three of our exchange by admitting that my critique of round two was justified and that he had erred in identifying principles as ideal commands to be optimized. He now proposes an index theory of principles. In the paper, I recapitulate the motive and the main points of our debate and scrutinize Alexy’s latest innovation.     

A Conception of Moral Rights and Its Application to Property and Welfare Rights*

Abstract
This article deals with the conceptual features and the rational justification of moral rights. For this purpose, the author starts with a common classification of rights, i.e., the distinction between rights in rem and rights in personam . He argues that rights of the first kind can be justified by a two-fold application of the principle of universalizability, while the latter are based on moral rules concerning special social relations, rules which themselves are founded on the principle of universalizability. This distinction, however, does not suffice to cover a further category of rights that play a very important role in social life, namely the rights of community membership, i.e., the particular rights that exist between the members of a social community. These rights cannot be derived from universalizability alone, but, instead, are based on the idea of social justice. This paper provides a short account of the main principles of social justice, and tries to apply them to property and welfare rights.     

财产权对人格权的积极索取与主动避让

财产权与人格权的关系历来是充满争议和左右徘徊的问题。传统理论认为人格权是内在于人且具有绝对的不可侵犯性,在与财产权冲突时优先。但并非所有人格要素都是内在于人,物质性人格权,尤其是身体权和生命权具有绝对优先性,财产权面临生命和身体冲突须主动作出自我牺牲性避让,甚至是以作为方式提供救助,而一些非物质性人格利益并不具有内在性和绝对不可侵性,财产权则可以对其实施积极索取,但在一定临界点,也必须立即停止积极索取行为,只是这种避让无须作出自我牺牲,无须作为。     

Professor Waldron Goes to Washington

In Torture, Terror and Trade-Offs: Philosophy for the White House Jeremy Waldron asks how moral philosophy can illuminate real life political problems. He argues that moral philosophers should remind politicians of the importance of adhering to moral principle, and he also argues that some moral principles are absolute and exceptionless. Thus, he is very critical of those philosophers who, post 9/11, were willing to condone the use of torture. In this article I discuss and criticize Waldron’s absolutism. In particular, I claim that the arguments he offers in support of it are either dependent on religious conviction or support only rule utilitarianism, not absolutism. Additionally, I argue that the character of politics is such that it is both undesirable and morally irresponsible for politicians to adopt the absolutist approach favoured by Waldron. We have reason to be glad that Professor Waldron does not go to Washington.     

The Human Genome Diversity Project: The Politics of Patents at the Intersection of Race, Religion, and Research Ethics

The patenting of human genetic materials provokes wide-ranging misgivings about the appropriate place and scope of intellectual property protections. The issues implicated range from anti-competitive practices in the market, the imposition of limits on biomedical research, increasing costs for health care, research ethics, potentials for racial discrimination, and various violations of human rights. Exploring controversies around the Human Genome Diversity Project, patents on genetic sequences, and patents on higher life forms such as the so-called "Harvard mouse," the authors find that North American patent policy has developed in the absence of necessary political debate. They link this de-politicization to the hegemony of neo-liberal principles most fully demonstrated by the incorporation of intellectual property under international trade negotiations. They point, however, to the recent emergence and increasing audibility of new social movements that seek to reposition issues of intellectual property in larger debates about human rights, distributional equalities, and social justice.