政策否决的社会建构——以我国几次立法禁止“人肉搜索”的失败为例

针对传统的政策否决理论无法对我国立法禁止"人肉搜索"失败的现象做出完满解释的问题,本文通过引入建构主义社会学中边界物的概念认为:作为边界物的"人肉搜索"由于其解释的灵活性,存在着技术、权利和适用三个层面的划界。如果说从依靠人的"人机互动"中衍生出针对人的"人际互动"具有偶然性的因素,在其立法禁止的多方尝试中却是隐私权和"监督权-批评权"相对于另外一种隐私权和言论自由权划界方式的胜利。虽然中央和地方都试图在"监督权-批评权"的指涉对象上做出社会一般失范和官员腐败的划分,结果也只是带来规制性政策的流产或是象征性通过,即便趋利避害地利用"人肉搜索"已经得到了社会各界的广泛认同。文章还进一步指出,"人肉搜索"现象的出现和政策应对上的两难源于国家和公民社会之间的张力,只有对其进行有效分流才能真正阻止"网络暴力"的产生。而且在信息社会等生成性的制度语境下,打开政策问题内容的黑箱也是十分必要的。     

文化权利:公民权利的社会基础

西方国家政治自由民主和市场经济取得稳定发展的同时,国内少数民族文化权利问题开始成为主要矛盾。西方主要的三派政治理论分别从不同的立场提出解决少数群体文化权利问题,其中自由主义的多元文化政治理论提出少数民族自治来实现公民权利平等的社会正义理论。但是这些主张与国家普遍公民权发生冲突,进而影响到自由民主价值和政治制度稳定。因此,自由主义的民族政治理论只有进一步地探讨如何有效地处理民族国家的一元文化要求与多元文化的社会现实之间的矛盾,保障少数民族公民权利和公民文化权利和睦相处才能真正解决国家内部的民族问题。     

人权的普遍性根据与实现人权的文化前提

人的自由的绝对性使人拥有绝对的人权,维护与实践人权作为一种自觉的要求,要以对人的自由本质与绝对权利的自觉为前提,也就是要以启蒙文化为前提,而启蒙文化需要由文化启蒙来造就.这意味着,既不可能以武力推行人权,也不可能以任何文化传统的特殊性为借口拒绝人权.人权的绝对性与民族主义国家理论并无学理上的关联,一个主权实体内部的人权...     

行政过程中相对人程序性权利的价值

行政相对人的概念已逐步被人们所接受,对其进行更深入的研究是行政法学进一步发展的需要。现代社会对人权的普遍重视反映到行政法中就要求我们尊重和保护行政相对人权利。而现在对行政相对人权利的研究大多是在立法领域与司法领域中,时行政过程中相对人权利的研究却不多,因此,有必要对行政过程进行界定,在此基础上,对行政相对人程序性权利的价值进行分析,目的在于明确其在行政法学理论与实践中不可缺少的地位。程序性权利作为一项没有引起人们足够关注的权利,必将随着人权观念和公民权利观念的发展而日益深入人心。     

法人人格权探析

自然人人格基于人的伦理性,与自然人不同,法人人格的确立基于经济的原因。由于法人不具有伦理性,法人人格权同自然人人格权具有本质上的差异。承认法人人格权是对民法人文主义的背离。     

知识产权公益诉讼制度研究

公益诉讼作为一种新的诉讼形式越来越普遍,然而相配套的制度建构却比较贫乏,这些问题也体现在对知识产权公共利益、国家利益的侵害上。文章对知识产权公益诉讼的内涵进行探索性的界定,以此为基础进一步分析知识产权公益诉讼的必要性和正当性,进而提出一些知识产权公益诉讼制度建构的建议。     

试论“后悔权”设立之法学证成

作为舶来事物,＂后悔权＂一经浮出水面,即遭受或赞或弹的命运。其中的质疑不无道理,但又有失偏颇。据此,厘清＂后悔权＂之真正意旨,区别相关权利,奠定对其讨论的正确基础实为必须且为必要。此外,＂后悔权＂作为一个货真价实的＂国际惯例＂,无理由将之拒之门外,但为避免＂水土不服＂的尴尬,其设立必须兼顾本土实际,即：一切从实际出发,设立中国特色的＂后悔权＂制度——＂有限后悔权＂制度。     

Gender in the Context of Same‐Sex Divorce and Relationship Dissolution

This article identifies ways that judges, lawyers, researchers, and policy makers may attend to the role of gender and gender dynamics facing same‐sex couples upon divorce or other relationship dissolution. When same‐sex couples marry, the legal system and society at large may project conceptions of gender onto same‐sex couples, often in a manner that conflicts with couples' intentions and practices. Gender and gender dynamics may affect the bases for dissolution, the financial aspects of dissolution, and the determination of child custody. The article also suggests directions for future research on the impact of gender on the dissolution of same‐sex relationships.     

Law enforcement access to personal data originally collected by private parties: Missing data subjects' safeguards in directive 2016/680?

Access by law enforcement authorities to personal data initially collected by private parties for commercial or operational purposes is very common, as shown by the transparency reports of new technology companies on law enforcement requests. From a data protection perspective, the scenario of law enforcement access is not necessarily well taken into account. The adoption of the new data protection framework offers the opportunity to assess whether the new ‘police’ Directive, which regulates the processing of personal data for law enforcement purposes, offers sufficient safeguards to individuals. To make this assessment, provisions contained in Directive 2016/680 are tested against the standards established by the ECJ in Digital Rights Ireland and Tele2 Sverige on the retention of data and their further access and use by police authorities. The analysis reveals that Directive 2016/680 does not contain the safeguards identified in the case law. The paper further assesses the role and efficiency of the principle of purpose limitation as a safeguard against repurposing in a law enforcement context. Last, solutions to overcome the shortcomings of Directive 2016/680 are examined in conclusion.     

Opinion 1/15 of the Grand Chamber dated 26 July 2017 about the agreement on Passenger Name Record data between the EU and Canada

On 26 July 2017, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice rendered its seminal Opinion 1/15 about the agreement on Passenger Name Record data between the EU and Canada. The Grand Chamber considered that the decision of the Council about the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the agreement between the EU and Canada about the transfer and processing of PNR data must be based jointly on Article 16(2) about the protection of personal data and Article 87(2)(a) about police co-operation among member states in criminal matters, but not on Article 82(1)(d) about judicial co-operation in criminal matters in the EU of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The Grand Chamber also considered that the agreement is incompatible with Article 7 on the right to respect for private life, Article 8 on the right to the protection of personal data, Article 21 on non-discrimination and Article 52(1) on the principle of proportionality of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU since it does not preclude the transfer, use and retention of sensitive data. In addition to the requirement to exclude such data, the Grand Chamber listed seven requirements that the agreement must include, specify, limit or guarantee to be compatible with the Charter.The opinion of the Grand Chamber has far-reaching implications for the agreement on PNR data between the EU and Canada. It has also far-reaching implications for international agreements on PNR data between the EU and other third states. Last, it has far-reaching implications for Directive 681 of 27 April 2016 on PNR data.