论公证权的基本属性

在以德国、法国为代表的大陆法系国家的公证法律制度中,公证员都具有国家公职人员和自由职业的双重属性。关于公证权的性质界定,在法学界比较一致的看法都认为它是一种国家权力,是国家在对当事人所涉及的法律行为、有法律意义的文书进行证明,以此来证明其真实性、合法性。由此得出了公证权是国家授权的理论。很多教材、专著和论文都认为公证权是一种国家权力或是国家以法律的形式将该项权力授予公证人来行使,从而使得公证证明具有不同于一般民间私证     

Gun control in the United States

A.B., University of California, Berkeley, 1964; Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970.     

试论社会转型背景下的公民基本权利保障

当前,我国社会流动、社会分化、社会矛盾复杂、利益格局重构、权利意识增强等社会转型特点在新时期有了新的发展,特别是在如何保障公民的基本权利方面既面临着困境,也蕴含着契机。因此,我们要从法律、政府、社会三个基本维度出发来寻找公民基本权利保障的突破口,使之在现实中得到充分实现。     

Taking fundamental rights seriously in the Digital Services Act's platform liability regime

This article highlights how the EU fundamental rights framework should inform the liability regime of platforms foreseen in secondary EU law, in particular with regard to the reform of the E-commerce directive by the Digital Services Act. In order to identify all possible tensions between the liability regime of platforms on the one hand, and fundamental rights on the other hand, and in order to contribute to a well-balanced and proportionate European legal instrument, this article addresses these potential conflicts from the standpoint of users (those who share content and those who access it), platforms, regulators and other stakeholders involved. Section 2 delves into the intricate landscape of online intermediary liability, interrogating how the E-Commerce Directive and the emerging Digital Services Act grapple with the delicate equilibrium between shielding intermediaries and upholding the competing rights of other stakeholders. The article then navigates in Section 3 the fraught terrain of fundamental rights as articulated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under the aegis of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter. This section poses an urgent inquiry: can the DSA's foundational principles reconcile these legal frameworks in a manner that fuels democracy rather than stifles it through inadvertent censorship? Section 4 then delves into the intricate relationship between fundamental rights and the DSA reform. This section conducts a comprehensive analysis of the key provisions of the DSA, emphasising how they underscore the importance of fundamental rights. In addition to mapping out the strengths of the framework the section also identifies existing limitations within the DSA and suggests potential pathways for further refinement and improvement. This article concludes by outlining key avenues for achieving a balanced and fundamental rights-compliant regulatory framework for platform liability within the EU.     

Export control of cybersurveillance items in the new dual-use regulation: The challenges of applying human rights logic to export control

In 2021, the Recast Dual-Use Regulation entered into force. The regulation includes a heavily debated new provision on the export control of so-called cybersurveillance items. This provision departs from the traditional logic of export control rules in multiple ways. Most importantly, it positions human rights considerations as an important factor in the export control of a flexible range of technologies. This article explores the operation, implications and challenges of this new human rights-orientated approach to export control of digital surveillance technologies. Taking the definition of cybersurveillance items as a starting point of the analysis, the article draws on surveillance-related case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, to define the potential scope of application of the open-ended cybersurveillance concept of the Regulation. By exploring how this concept maps to technologies often connected with human rights infringements, such as facial recognition, location tracking and open-source intelligence, the article highlights the challenges of applying this new approach and underscores the need for its further development in practice.     

犯罪控制与人权保护

犯罪从根本上说是对人的权利的侵犯。惩罚犯罪、控制犯罪是人权保护的应有之义。然而,惩罚犯罪、控制犯罪语境中的人权保护主要是保护遭受犯罪侵害的被害人的权利。事实上,在作为惩罚犯罪载体的刑事诉讼中,人权保护的概念涉及犯罪嫌疑人、被告人、被害人和其他诉讼参与人的诉讼     

跨国公司人权责任的规制及其反思

在追究跨国公司的国际人权责任方面，目前主要有三种规制方式：国家对跨国公司的管制；来自非政府组织和其他国际组织的监督以及跨国公司的自律。但这些途径尚不足以成为跨国公司承担人权责任的有效保障．因而必须采取措施强化跨国公司国际人权责任的规制。     

EU citizenship and (fundamental) rights: Empirical,normative, and conceptual problems

There is a close connection between EU citizenship and rights, both in the law and literature. This article claims that EU lawyers' understanding of EU citizenship and rights suffers from empirical, normative, and conceptual shortcomings. I will point out that there has been insufficient awareness for the boundedness of EU citizenship, the political structure of the EU and the constraints this (realistically) imposes on the ‘meaningfulness’ of EU citizenship. EU citizenship must not be understood as requiring an elaborate set of equal rights for all Union citizens throuzghout the EU, but valued for its ability to allow its status holders to enjoy (almost) full membership in the Member States of which they do not possess nationality.     

Negative governmentality through fundamental rights: The far side of the European Convention on Human Rights

This essay analyses those statements that mention legal norms in negative terms. Specifically, it analyses those statements that define a legal system by mentioning how legal protection does not work and where legal protection ends, and those statements that identify what rights‐holders do not have to with their legally protected free capacities. This essay argues that these statements address a systemic question. It calls such a dynamic as negative governmentality. The argument proceeds in four steps. It introduces the concept of negative governmentality by arguing that the idea of freedom requires both the positive affirmation of moral agency and the constraining of moral agency (Section 2 ). It then explores how rights constitute freedom by limiting rights or making exceptions to them (Section 3 ). Later, it analyses how rights‐based norms prevent abuse of rights by holders of rights (Section 4 ). Finally, it sees how rights‐based norms constrain the legal guarantor of rights, i.e., a state (Section 5 ). The essay concludes by mentioning the importance of negative governmentality (Section 6 ).     

The Dublin Regulation,mutual trust and fundamental rights: No exceptionality for children?

Mutual trust in the Dublin III Regulation is justified by the assumption that all Member States respect the fundamental rights of asylum seekers and that it is therefore immaterial which Member State processes any given claim. This justification has been questioned in light of the treatment of asylum seekers in some Member States. Nonetheless, in order to circumvent a Dublin transfer on fundamental rights grounds, the Court of Justice of the EU has held that the risked violation must meet the threshold for inhuman or degrading treatment in Article 4 of the Charter. Recently, the Court rejected the proposition that another Charter right—the principle of the best interests of the child—could block Dublin transfers of families with children. Through a child-rights analysis of the jurisprudence, this article explores the idea of exceptionality for children, concluding that there is potential for the best interests principle to trump mutual trust.