关于儒学价值观普世性问题的思考

即使是在“全球化”的当今,作为中国文化传统核心的儒学,仍有其普世性价值。     

浅析反不正当竞争法的一般条款

1993年颁布的《反不正当竞争法》,它的制定与实施为我国建立统一、公正的市场竞争秩序提供了法律依据。然而,随着市场自身的快速发展,这些具体的规定已经无法全面、有效地规范市场竞争秩序,这就要求我们要重新认识《反不正当竞争法》,制定一个一般条款。经济法最本质的内容就是国家与经济之间的关系问题,因此,国家应在大力发展商品经济的同时,充分发挥市场机制的作用,在此基础上,恰当地发挥国家职能,对经济进行必要的、合理的干预。     

俄罗斯联邦检察机关的“一般监督”职能及其对我国的启示

1922年5月28日,当时的苏维埃俄国通过了《俄罗斯社会主义联邦苏维埃共和国检察机关条例》,首次赋予检察机关以"一般监督"职能。自此之后,检察机关的"一般监督"职能得以继承和发展。目前,检察机关的"一般监督"职能,在俄罗斯联邦检察机关的检察监督职能中仍然占据首要地位,並在发现和消除行政执法过程中许多行政违法行为(作为或不作为)方面,发挥着举足轻重的作用。考察和研究俄罗斯联邦检察机关"一般监督"职能的历史发展、主要内容和实践效果,对我国具有重要的启示意义。     

各利益相关者在医院与社区双向转诊合作中的责任与机制简

针对目前双向转诊中信息不能共享、药品获得和费用报销障碍、社区人力服务水平相对较差等问题,从双向转诊中各利益相关者角度分析在双向转诊实施过程中政府、医疗机构（医院与社区卫生服务机构）、患者与家属各自应当承担的责任,提出相应的措施及改进机制。     

Impediments besetting the negotiations for a comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and East and Southern Africa (2007–2014)

Several African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are currently negotiating World Trade Organization (WTO)-compatible reciprocal economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with the European Union (EU), agreements intended to supersede the one-sided trade preferences of the Lomé Convention. This study focuses on impediments which have bedevilled the EU–East and Southern Africa (ESA) negotiations for a transition from an interim EPA to a comprehensive EPA. These talks, which ran from 2007 to 2014, followed the expiry of a WTO waiver and the ESA's successful resistance to elements of the EU's agenda considered offensive, despite envisaged benefits provided for by the Cotonou Partnership Agreement of 2000 calling for EPAs. The study is based on qualitative primary research in which data from interviews was augmented by a synthesis of secondary sources and analysed through a thematic coding system. Findings reveal asymmetrical power relations, a marked heterogeneity in the ESA and outstanding issues in the interim EPA and WTO regulations as major impediments to the transition to a comprehensive EPA.     

iCLIC Data Mining and Data Sharing workshop: The present and future of data mining and data sharing in the EU

Held at Southampton University's Highfield campus and hosted by iCLIC, an interdisciplinary core on Law, the Internet and Culture, the Data Mining and Data Sharing workshop brought together attendees and speakers from industry, government, academia and a range of disciplines alike. The workshop comprised two sessions, each with a keynote and an associated panel. The first session was chaired by Eleonora Rosati and dealt with copyright and database rights, data mining and data sharing. The second session, chaired by Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon, focussed on data protection, data mining and data sharing. The following report covers both sessions, associated panel discussions and the subsequent question and answer sessions.     

制定《商事通则》论纲--以总体思路、体系结构为研究内容

制定《商事通则》的总体思路是 :《商事通则》只应调整那些传统民法难以或不便调整的以营利为目的的社会关系 ;应以企业作为主要规范对象 ;只应将总纲性的法律规范 ,以及不宜以商事单行法的形式规范或以商事单行形式规范成本过高的内容包含进去 ;其法律属性应为具有较多公法规范的私法。《商事通则》的体系结构应根据我国现实的理论、立法和实践确定 ,应在《商事通则》的篇首置“基本原则”章。     

大治安及其学说之边际

大治安,既是个含超公安管理的话题,又是个含超社会治安的话题,还是个含超安邦定国的话题。天时、地利、人和集一身,大治安及其学说必须厘清边际。大治安及其学说边际之长,指大治安是全过程的治安,涉及治安之前、中、后全过程。大治安及其学说边际之宽,指大治安是全方位的治安,涉及治安之官、民、匪全方位。大治安及其学说边际之高,指大治安是全层次的治安,涉及治安之社（社会）、人（人文）、物（自然）全层次。     

Are ‘pseudonymised’ data always personal data? Implications of the GDPR for administrative data research in the UK

There has naturally been a good deal of discussion of the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation. One issue of interest to all data controllers, and of particular concern for researchers, is whether the GDPR expands the scope of personal data through the introduction of the term ‘pseudonymisation’ in Article 4(5). If all data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of the word (e.g. key-coded) are to be treated as personal data, this would have serious implications for research. Administrative data research, which is carried out on data routinely collected and held by public authorities, would be particularly affected as the sharing of de-identified data could constitute the unconsented disclosure of identifiable information.Instead, however, we argue that the definition of pseudonymisation in Article 4(5) GDPR will not expand the category of personal data, and that there is no intention that it should do so. The definition of pseudonymisation under the GDPR is not intended to determine whether data are personal data; indeed it is clear that all data falling within this definition are personal data. Rather, it is Recital 26 and its requirement of a ‘means reasonably likely to be used’ which remains the relevant test as to whether data are personal. This leaves open the possibility that data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of key-coding can still be rendered anonymous. There may also be circumstances in which data which have undergone pseudonymisation within one organisation could be anonymous for a third party. We explain how, with reference to the data environment factors as set out in the UK Anonymisation Network's Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework.     

Clarity,surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling

The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party's recent draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling seeks to clarify European data protection (DP) law's little-used right to prevent automated decision-making, as well as the provisions around profiling more broadly, in the run-up to the General Data Protection Regulation. In this paper, we analyse these new guidelines in the context of recent scholarly debates and technological concerns. They foray into the less-trodden areas of bias and non-discrimination, the significance of advertising, the nature of “solely” automated decisions, impacts upon groups and the inference of special categories of data—at times, appearing more to be making or extending rules than to be interpreting them. At the same time, they provide only partial clarity – and perhaps even some extra confusion – around both the much discussed “right to an explanation” and the apparent prohibition on significant automated decisions concerning children. The Working Party appears to feel less mandated to adjudicate in these conflicts between the recitals and the enacting articles than to explore altogether new avenues. Nevertheless, the directions they choose to explore are particularly important ones for the future governance of machine learning and artificial intelligence in Europe and beyond.