数字金融的功能监管及其精准化实施

数字金融迅速崛起在推动金融行业创新、发展和变革的同时，人机协同、技术迭代与架构异化给金融监管带来了颠覆性挑战。现行机构监管模式难以有效因应数字金融业态复杂化嵌套属性及交易架构异化问题，需要实现向功能监管的转型，并辅之以穿透式监管、嵌入式监管和行为监管。数字金融创新与安全的动态衡平需要功能监管的精准化实施，应当在坚持类型化思维基础上厘定数字金融监管的法律尺度，同时以法律数智化重构数字金融监管法律体系，为功能监管的精准化实施奠定法律基础。而依托监管科技的“技”“法”协同机制，是数字金融功能监管精准化实施的有力保障。     

美国场外金融衍生品规则演变及监管改革

美国场外金融衍生品规则经历了从普通法规则到成文法规 范,从分散到集中立法,从监管竞争到合作的演变。美国以证券和商品划分的传 统监管导致场外金融衍生品交易面临法律的不确定,监管权异化为豁免权。监 管改革虽没有触及多头监管的基本模式,但交叉机制的引入以及协调合作的强 制性制度安排有效地防止了监管权冲突,顺应了场外金融衍生品的创新发展及 其与证券界限日趋模糊的现实需求。     

金融司法监管化的边界约束

随着金融创新的复杂化,金融风险加剧衍生,以维护金融稳定为目的、穿透式审查为特点的强监管时代已至,大量嵌有政策导向的金融监管规章频频“造法”。受传统民商法解释力不足、金融法律空洞化、法院政治话语寻求及经济学“拿来主义”的影响,金融司法呈现攀附监管的趋势,行政规章成为影响合同效力判定的“影子标准”,这一定程度改善了司法裁判依据不足的状况,增强了风险治理的协同。但囿于边界不清、进路不明,实践中同案不同判现象突出,在金融安全公共利益至上的口号下,模板式的泛化适用侵犯私法自治根基、影响金融创新、损害司法预期的隐患日益显现。破解困局关键在于明确金融司法监管化的边界约束,聚焦金融商法的规范意旨,以法益衡平和比例审查为基础,从公序良俗、商事习惯和合同嵌入的三重角度重塑金融监管规章介入司法裁判的合理通道。     

论金融创新风险及其法律监管理念——以当前世界金融海啸为背景

金融创新是金融市场发展的重要动力,金融创新风险则是伴随金融创新过程的产物。对于金融创新风险的监管,其切入点和归宿都在于金融法律监管,而金融法律监管理念的更新是建立科学、完善法律监管机制的基础。从金融创新历史和金融法律监管理念演变出发,通过对其变更脉络的梳理,结合当前国内外金融市场实际情况,可以得出,在金融创新风险的法律监管理念上,我们应当始终秉持以金融安全优先,充分创新与有效监管相结合的理念。     

我国金融创新与金融法律监管的关系

金融创新是金融深化的突破口,对金融业乃至整个经济运行机制、运行方式和运行效率都产生了重要影响,同时也给金融法律监管带来了挑战。金融法律监管作为一种管制手段,对金融创新既有促进作用,也有抑制作用。作为一对矛盾统一体,金融创新与金融法律监管在互动过程中,共同促进金融业发展。本文分析了我国金融创新与金融法律监管的关系,指出了我国金融法律监管中的一些不足,并提出了完善的建议。     

金融创新的法律保护初探

经济全球化特别是金融全球化使得金融创新不断出现,而金融创新带来了一系列的问题,诸如金融创新的法律保护,金融创新的法律监管,以及建立金融创新的法律衡平机制等等.本文从金融创新的特点探讨金融创新的法律保护问题.     

市场型金融创新法律监管路径的反思与超越

市场型金融创新凸显了规范与现实之间的冲突。无论是选择性监管路径,还是规则扩张式监管路径,抑或是以监管沙箱为代表的实验式监管路径,都不能很好地解决该冲突。以上三种路径,都是在“术”的层面上展开。为了超越以上三种路径,我国应在“道”的层面上进行理念与制度完善,即我国需要完善金融法治基础,建构金融法治哲学,制定《金融法典》或《金融法总则》,创新金融法的更新机制,创建市场型金融创新合法性裁定制度,完善市场型金融创新的法律责任,以便进一步提升我国对市场型金融创新监管的法治化水平。     

论金融创新与金融法律监管理念

金融创新在推动金融市场发展的同时,不可避免的带来风险。金融监管活动向金融法律监管过渡符合金融监管工作的内部规律,也是"依法治国"方略下的正确选择。而以法律监管作为金融创新规制的主要手段是这一趋势的体现。在金融创新的法律监管理念上,我们应当秉持以金融安全优先,充分创新与有效监管结合的理念。     

后危机时代我国金融创新监管的法律因应之道——以美国次贷危机为视点

在法律领域内,从金融创新监管角度研究美国次贷危机的论述很多,但经常自说自话,彼此之间并没有建立有效的联系。因此,运用金融学对美国次贷危机进行系统和深入的研究,对各种已有论说从微观（运用资产证券化和结构化金融技术设计出的次级抵押债券和金融衍生品）和宏观（上述金融衍生品的广泛交易,催生了一个还没有建立起有效监管的＂影子银行＂体系）两个层面加以整合,从而对次贷危机暴露出的金融创新监管问题实现一个整体和有机的把握,在此基础之上,从微观和宏观层面构建我国法律的因应之道就具有十分重要的意义。     

金融安全的刑法保护边界

当前社会发展转型导致金融犯罪屡见不鲜，亟需优化刑法规制模式。对于金融犯罪的侵害法益，既不能泛化地扩张解释金融犯罪的社会化危害性或法益内涵导致金融管理秩序被破坏，又不能过度地限缩解释导致金融犯罪行为与金融管理秩序脱离，而是应该客观地评价行为的社会危害性，基于防范法律所不允许的不当金融风险的法益实质进行刑法解释模式。在区分金融创新与金融犯罪的界限时应该强调对金融创新的合理监管，并运用“穿透式”监管方式来准确把握各类新金融现象，实质判断金融创新活动是否构成犯罪。在金融犯罪的构成要件的认定过程中，需要结合法定犯语境来贯彻法秩序统一的基本解释方法，尽可能保持刑法中规范构成要件与金融法律中的规定一致。在判断行为人的违法性认识时，如果金融法律规定明确，则行为人不能以不知法作为免责事由，而只有在特定情形下才可能以违法性认识错误难以避免来出罪。     

Varieties of Welfarism in European Contract Law

Abstract:  A scheme describing six welfarist directions in modern contract law is used to assess the extent to which current European measures that affect contract law have embraced these welfarist developments. Although some EC legislation may be interpreted as possessing elements of a limited welfarist perspective, it is concluded that bolder welfarist strands have proved largely absent. A European civil code or contract code would prove too static an instrument to promote the evolution of further welfarist developments.     

网络著作人身权研究

在数字网络时代,传统的著作人身权面临适格性困惑、基本概念模糊、合理性质疑和实施困难等诸多挑战。我国应借鉴他国有关著作人身权立法的成功经验,完善软件著作人身权的内容、确立著作人身权流转的合同模式、重构著作人身权侵权的判断标准。     

Will firms consider a European optional instrument in contract law?

The diversity of contract laws is said by the Commission to discourage cross-border trade and hinder the development by SMEs of a pan-European commercial policy. An optional instrument containing both facilitative general contract rules and mandatory consumer protection rules, one of the solutions proposed by the Commission, is gaining rapid support from key stakeholders. Drawing from firms?? own views on the problems of legal diversity, and insights from organisational science, this article sets out the circumstances in which firms will likely consider a European optional code. Results are mixed: some firms may consider it, while others may ignore it. Much depends the firm??s aspirations (i.e. SMEs cannot be assumed as-yet to have pan-European aspirations), how the firm perceives the problems of legal diversity, and how it searches for and decides upon solutions. It would appear that a European optional instrument may not be as useful or widely considered as its proponents would like to believe.     

欧美合同冲突法中意思自治原则的趋同化——从经济效率角度分析

比较欧美有关合同冲突立法中的意思自治原则可以发现,两者都将意思自治作为法律选择的首要方法,并且对于意思自治的限度呈现出在普通合同领域逐渐放松,在特殊合同领域渐趋加强的共同趋势。此种共同趋势的出现并不是偶然的,而是可以从经济效率角度作出解释。     

Alive and well: the good faith principle in Turkish contract law

Good faith is a principle prominent in civil law countries but less so in common law countries, and which allows courts to deviate from black letter law. It provides them with flexibility to change the outcome of a deductive legal decision if they regard it as absurd. The principle of good faith thus empowers the judiciary to deviate. It can be used for an indefinite number of cases and might lead to almost all conceivable legal consequences. For instance, the judge can invalidate the contract, change the price, suspend or change a clause in the contract, or grant injunctive relief, compensation of damages, the disgorgement of profits or a removal claim. We argue that if the principle of good faith is used to develop contract law into an instrument for redistributing wealth in favor of poor parties, this can destroy the concept of contract as a social mechanism for generating mutual gains for parties, which might lead to unwanted economic consequences in terms of efficiency losses. We argue that the principle of good faith must be carefully and reluctantly used to reconstruct the fully specified contract and that well-informed judges, who understand the factual environment of a contract well should ask how fair bur self-interested parties would have allocated the risk in a pre-contractual situation. If the courts restrict the application of the good faith principle to these functions, this provides elasticity that otherwise would not exist if courts would strictly use the rules laid down in black letter law. Moreover, it saves transactions costs and is therefore in line with economic reasoning. We look at the most important Turkish cases and find that the Turkish Supreme Court following Continental European doctrines of good faith actually uses this principle to curb opportunistic behavior of parties and not to achieve redistribution from the rich to the poor by way of interfering into contract law.     

公用事业公私合作合同的法律属性与规制路径——基于经济法视野的考察

公用事业公私合作合同是国家规范公用事业公私合作活动的重要法律工具,具有经济法的属性,应接受公法与私法的双重规制。就公法规制来说,政府应保留一定的公权力,并承担相应的义务,同时,私人部门也应承担一定的公法义务,其部分私权利要接受公法的限制。就私法规制来看,主要体现在基于契约精神对政府公权力进行限制,并要求政府承担相应的合作风险,以及在违反合同义务的时候,承担相应的民事法律责任。     

A Toolbox for European Judges

The forthcoming instrument on European contract law, be it in the shape of an optional code for cross‐border contracts or as an official toolbox for the European legislator, is likely to have a spill‐over effect on private law adjudication in Europe. Judges will have no great difficulty in finding model rules and definitions that might come in handy when dealing with gaps and ambiguities in European private law. However, the question is whether such a role as a toolbox for judges would be legitimate. I discuss three types of possible legitimation strategies: traditional methods of legal interpretation, the new European methods and merely political legitimation. It will often depend on the circumstances of the case at hand and the characteristics of the particular model rule or definition that is being borrowed what mode of legitimation will prove to be more convincing. However, generally speaking legitimation in terms of the ‘general principles of civil law’ that the CJEU has recently been developing seems a particularly promising strategy. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that European courts could come under a duty, following from the principle of sincere cooperation, to use the instrument as a toolbox.     

经济法上的非强制性干预研究

经济法被视为克服市场失灵的基本法律形式。解决市场失灵问题的基本途径既包括强制性干预,也包括非强制性干预。可以将经济法上的非强制性干预划分为投资经营、经济合同、经济促导、民主协商、行政给付、信息供给、行业协会干预几种类型,在此基础上有必要对非强制性干预的价值、存在的问题及完善的路径作进一步分析,以深化对经济法干预机制的认识。     

The unintended consequence of doorstep consumer protection: surprise,reciprocation, and consistency

Cooling-off periods are universally employed in doorstep selling regimes. Paired with a right for consumers to withdraw from the contract, this legal instrument seeks to protect consumers against superior skilled and knowledgeable sellers thus restoring the balance of interests. According to prior literature, cooling-off periods also serve an economic function by moderating the abuse of market power, by mitigating problems of hidden characteristics, and by promoting consumer choice. If their drawbacks—mainly the creation of consumer moral hazard and shifting of risk to the seller—can be contained, cooling-off periods are hence supposed to yield efficiency gains. By thinking out of this box, the present paper showcases that cooling-off periods also establish the perverse incentive for the seller to increase consumer compliance to a level which outlasts the cooling-off period. I argue that inevitably occurring psychological factors and transaction costs from the cooling-off regime amplify each other, thus creating a hard-lock status-quo bias. Based on behavioural insights and transaction cost theory, I predict that an inefficiently high number of consumers will enter into a doorstep contract and that, at the same time, the number of cancelled contracts will be inefficiently low. Consequently, I propose to change the default inherent in current cooling-off regimes from presumed consent to presumed withdrawal in order to debias consumers’ withdrawal decision.     

What you sell is what you lend? Revealing complexity of <Emphasis Type="Italic">riba</Emphasis> in loan contract

The purpose of this paper is to resolve and examine the possible modus operandi of riba on selling and loan contract according to the Sharia’s precepts. This paper investigate the Qur’an, hadith, and juristic views on such relevant issues based on the survey done on the several sources, i.e., previous studies, Al-Qur’an and Al-Hadith and juristic views and deviate from the existing studies in two aspects, i.e., the selling and buying of goods do not involve riba and also the banks provide loan without riba. The findings of this paper are: First, the concept of interest in lending is widely accepted both in theory and practice. Second, riba exists in selling and lending. Third, the categorization and application of extensive and complex subjects of riba in economic life bring all speculative and usurious transactions under the rubric of riba prohibition. This paper important because express and disclosure riba in both exchange of goods and loans, also the social and economic developments. This is an original undertaking of this paper.