比较法视野中的刑事证明方法与程序

诉讼主要与证明有关,从证明方法的类型及其合理性来解释和评价程序的制度与实践,应该是刑事程序法律比较的一个不可或缺、但未受足够重视的重要视角。从比较法的角度来看,一方面,不同的程序法规范决定了在认识论上区分的证明方法模式的合法性差异,而司法的现实需要和不同的宏观司法制度语境又会使证明方法的法律规范模式产生变异和分化的司法实践形态;另一方面,诉讼程序的法律规定和实践的许多差异,在很大程度上是证明方法的规范模式和实践形态的不同知识特征所产生的程序效应。这种研究可以纠偏关于程序原理的一些流行观念,树立一种工具理性的程序观,给中国刑事程序的法治化改革带来一些新的启示。     

我国的金融安全问题与金融监管对策

国家安全在全球化背景下越来越表现为经济安全和金融安全,随着经济全球化以及中国经济的进一步融入世界,我国的金融安全问题开始凸显：一类是国有资产由于涉外金融业务导致的巨大风险问题,另一类是国家金融体系的稳定和有效运行问题,它们都会造成国家和人民资产的巨大损失,甚至危害国家经济体系的运行,因此必须予以预防和克服。政府必须对国有资产和金融体系实施具有法治性质的金融监管,吸收借鉴国外金融危机的经验教训,建立健全我国的金融监管制度,才能有效维护国家的金融安全。     

Destructive sharing economy: A passage from status to contract

On the surface, the sharing economy only enables users to make the transactions of under-utilized resources over their two-sided platforms. An in-depth exploration of its sudden success reveals three distinctive features of this new business model, namely web search engine, proliferation of smart handhelds and user-generated reputation feedback mechanisms. All of these technological innovations not only inflict destructive changes to our social structure, but also lead to difficulties in an automatic inclusion of the sharing economy into the current regulatory framework. Two changes have raised particular attention. First, sharing platforms are capable of building a democratized private trust mechanism, in addition to the traditional government-monopolized public licensing system. Second, the vertical disintegration feature of the sharing economy considerably blurs the borderline between business and consumers, and between employers and employees. For the purpose of establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework for all online and offline activities, it is necessary to differentiate the sharing economy into those with offline competitors and those without offline competitors. With regard to the former, regulators are encouraged to embrace the sharing economy and meanwhile deregulate offline competitors. In relation to the latter, a three-condition analytical framework is proposed in order to strike a balance between promoting innovation and protecting the existing rights of others.     

The right to data portability in the GDPR: Towards user-centric interoperability of digital services

The right to data portability is one of the most important novelties within the EU General Data Protection Regulation, both in terms of warranting control rights to data subjects and in terms of being found at the intersection between data protection and other fields of law (competition law, intellectual property, consumer protection, etc.). It constitutes, thus, a valuable case of development and diffusion of effective user-centric privacy enhancing technologies and a first tool to allow individuals to enjoy the immaterial wealth of their personal data in the data economy. Indeed, a free portability of personal data from one controller to another can be a strong tool for data subjects in order to foster competition of digital services and interoperability of platforms and in order to enhance controllership of individuals on their own data. However, the adopted formulation of the right to data portability in the GDPR could benefit from further clarification: several interpretations are possible, particularly with regard to the object of the right and its interrelation with other rights, potentially leading to additional challenges within its technical implementation. The aim of this article is to propose a first systematic interpretation of this new right, by suggesting a pragmatic and extensive approach, particularly taking advantage as much as possible of the interrelationship that this new legal provision can have with regard to the Digital Single Market and the fundamental rights of digital users. In sum, the right to data portability can be approximated under two different perspectives: the minimalist approach (the adieu scenario) and the empowering approach (the fusing scenario), which the authors consider highly preferable.     

How about me? The scope of personal information under the Australian Privacy Act 1988

A recent Australian Federal Court decision has raised the issue of the scope of information protected under the Australian Privacy Act 1988. The Court failed to adequately address this question, leaving Australians unsure as to whether sections of their information, such as the IP addresses allocated to their mobile devices, will be considered personal information under the Act. The main consideration the Court dealt with was what it means for information to be “about” an individual. In this paper I address two questions: a) how is information determined to be “about” an individual under the Act; and b) how should this determination be made in the future? I conclude that currently available guidance from the courts, the Australian Information Commissioner and scholarly commentary are inadequate to enable individuals, organisations and agencies to consistently make such determinations. Accordingly I draw on approaches to this question taken in Canada, New Zealand, the European Union and the United Kingdom to argue that the definition should be broadly interpreted in a technologically-aware manner. This will help to ensure that personal information is more comprehensively protected under the Privacy Act.     

For Better or Worse? The Europeanisation of the Conflict of Laws

From its very beginnings the European Union(EU) has taken an interest in that area of legal activity known as the conflict of laws or private international law. The purpose of the conflict of laws is to determine how a national court should behave when confronted with a legal dispute that involves a foreign element. A state's conflict rules will provide the answer to three basic questions: in what circumstances their courts may assume jurisdiction over cases involving a foreign element, what system of municipal law to apply (their own or that of some foreign legal system) and which foreign judgments are capable of recognition and enforcement within their national system. The very fact that the EU exists in order to bring states together to form a single internal market would seem likely to provoke conflict of laws situations. It, therefore, appears unremarkable that the EU has agreed a variety of measures with a bearing on the conflict of laws. The purpose of this article, however, is not to give a detailed account of the EU's interventions on this topic. Instead the intention is to offer some thoughts upon and to raise some questions regarding the implications of the EU's engagement with the conflict of laws. In particular this article aims to provide an overview of the direction in which the EU is taking the conflict of laws and how this has affected the focus and character of the subject in one Member State, namely the United Kingdom. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

论"黑社会"的基本特征与法律完善

"黑社会",是指以从事违法犯罪活动为基本手段、非法控制一定区域或行为并与主流社会相对抗,从而具有自己独特的文化传统和管理制度的犯罪组织.其基本特征大致可以概括为以下六个方面一是非法控制社会性;二是稳定成熟的犯罪组织性;三是地域性及地缘感;四是不择手段获取经济利益性;五是严苛"黑色法制"与科层制;六是鲜明的犯罪亚文化.针对现行法律在惩治黑社会犯罪方面所存在的不足,应重点完善有关惩治黑社会犯罪的刑事实体法和程序法规定.     

遵从与变通：煤矿安全监管中的地方行为分析

改革开放以来,在重特大矿难事故频发的同时,地方瞒报等虚假治理现象也非常突出,成为中国煤矿安全监管面临的一个严峻挑战。引入了一个有关地方政府治理选择的模型,集中分析煤矿安全监管中地方官员基于成本-收益原则与中央与地方之间委托-代理关系基础上的行为选择;通过比较地方政府虚假治理和诚实治理的成本和收益,揭示了影响地方政府治理选择的因素及其作用过程。结论表明,在当前的制度背景下,虚假治理很可能在一定程度上、一定范围内成为地方的普遍选择,为此,需要进一步改革和调整中国煤矿安全监管制度,强化国家制度建设。     

侦查刑嫌调控的基本原理及工作模式

刑嫌调控对象的确定依据是刑嫌人员的人身危险性,刑嫌调控的破案机理是犯罪前及犯罪后的痕迹物证,刑嫌调控的破案模式是从人到案模式,刑嫌调控的基本方法是调查和控制。当前刑嫌调控面临着专业警力不足、动态不清、体制不顺等诸多困境。侦查刑嫌调控应当建立网络化、动态化、规范化和信息化的工作模式。     

浅析垄断协议规制对区域性电网企业的影响

《反垄断法》的制定、颁布与实施使得一些涉及垄断的行业备受社会关注,这其中就包括电力产业。电力行业的垄断现状为社会所关注。随着电力产业改革的深入,区域性电网企业的职能将仅限于输配电等环节,其市场行为可能会对发电侧、售电侧竞争产生影响。为保证发电侧、售电侧的竞争,与区域性电网企业有关的垄断协议行为应当受到关注。因此,对区域性电网企业可能涉及的垄断协议进行研究,是有必要的。