产品责任:北美视角的比较法评论

美国采纳严格产品责任的主要原因是:早期的法律不能给消费者提供充分的保护;调整保证的法律不是从消费者的角度出发的;美国的社会福利很大程度上不如其他西方国家。当今美国主要对于设计和信息性缺陷适用过失责任制度,严格产品制度仅适用于制造缺陷和非制造缺陷的销售者。欧洲和其他法域的严格产品制度远比美国严格。各种结构化和程序化的事务赋予美国公民更多诉至法院的机会。     

China's new regulatory regime tailored for the sharing economy: The case of Uber under Chinese local government regulation in comparison to the EU,US, and the UK

Although Uber's arrival in China has resulted in disruptive competition for incumbent taxi companies, it offers an attractive alternative in China's supply-demand-imbalanced urban passenger transport system. China's regulatory regime for Uber has evolved in three stages: from the regulatory vacuum prior to 2015 to its official legalization in 2015–2016, and the enactment of numerous local regulations in 2016, with specific and more demanding requirements for Uber. This policy is a part of the Chinese approach to the gradual liberalization of the urban passenger transport market. Policymakers should consider ‘fair competition’ as the guiding principle to balance the interests of sharing firms and incumbent service providers, as well as between different sharing firms. The core value of this principle lies in the benefits it provides for consumers and the way it engenders a pro-competitive market environment. The labor protection arrangements for sharing firms’ laborers should be more flexible and diversified. In order to recognize whether an Uber-Driver is an employee or independent contractor, a new standard taking into account a range of factors should be established through collective negotiations between the participants of the sharing economy, and dialogues between members of the judiciary, academics, and the policymakers. Further, consumer protection law and personal data protection provisions should apply when sharing firms misuse their distinctive algorithmic management model to compete unfairly to the detriment of consumers and other users. Ex ante regulatory measures designed to protect the personal data of users should be introduced for deployment in the context of the sharing economy. When enforcing these rules, a balance should be struck ensuring free data flow that is essential to sharing firms’ innovation and competition, and the need to ensure the level of data security required to underpin a well-functioning sharing society.     

Profiling the mobile customer – Is industry self-regulation adequate to protect consumer privacy when behavioural advertisers target mobile phones? – Part II

Mobile customers are increasingly being tracked and profiled by behavioural advertisers to enhance delivery of personalized advertising. This type of profiling relies on automated processes that mine databases containing personally-identifying or anonymous consumer data, and it raises a host of significant concerns about privacy and data protection. This second article in a two part series on “Profiling the Mobile Customer” explores how to best protect consumers’ privacy and personal data through available mechanisms that include industry self-regulation, privacy-enhancing technologies and legislative reform.¹ It discusses how well privacy and personal data concerns related to consumer profiling are addressed by two leading industry self-regulatory codes from the UK and the U.S. that aim to establish fair information practices for behavioural advertising by their member companies. It also discusses the current limitations of using technology to protect consumers from privacy abuses related to profiling. Concluding that industry self-regulation and available privacy-enhancing technologies will not be adequate to close important privacy gaps related to consumer profiling without legislative reform, it offers suggestions for EU and U.S. regulators about how to do this.²     

论消费欺诈诉讼案件证明难题的化解路径——以一个《最高人民法院公报》案例为样本的分析

消费欺诈诉讼案件中对＂欺诈＂事实的证明责任分配依＂规范说＂应由消费者承担,不应由法官裁量证明责任来改变法定的证明责任分配。法官自由裁量权应在证明评价与自由心证等环节加以运用。疑难案件的解决应坚持在严格遵循法定证明责任分配原则的基础上,通过司法实践生成诉讼证明的具体规则的路径来加以解决。     

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。     

Chinese and Japanese investment in Southeast and South Asia: case studies of the electronics and automobile industries

Abstract

This article uses extensive fieldwork data to focus on the question of how Chinese and Japanese companies are competing in neighboring countries of Asia, and what economic forces will shape their future growth in the region. It begins by briefly discussing the history of Chinese and Japanese investment in the South and Southeast Asian regions. It traces the development of Japanese overseas investment policies, as well as China's more recent ‘Going Out’ government program to encourage overseas flows of capital. It then builds on prior political economy work as it uses case study focuses, with primary data based on the author's fieldwork research in several nations of Southeast Asia and in India, of the two key sectors of automobiles and electronics. It compares and contrasts the investment strategies of companies from each country, as well as the successes and failures of investments in the industries. It finds that Japanese companies’ advantages lie in industries utilizing advanced technology and management skills. Though the Japanese continue to lead in many areas, including automobiles, they have begun to face competition and potentially reduced profits in vital manufacturing areas. Meanwhile, Chinese overseas companies have made significant advances in the consumer electronics sector, using low prices and good quality, though overseas automobile investments have gained little traction. The article concludes that, if the Chinese can improve their product quality, capitalize on improving managerial skills and a deeper level of experience in the region, and establish brands they can sell with reliable distribution networks, Japanese companies could face losses to their Asian neighbor in these important parts of the continent they have dominated for decades.     

电子数据取证若干问题研究

随着计算机科学的普及与发展,涉及计算机系统的案件也与日俱增,电子数据取证的正确与否关系到案件的定性与定罪量刑问题。电子证据具有双重性、多媒体性、易破坏性等特征,电子数据取证应坚持及时性、合法性、全面性和专业性等原则。现阶段电子数据取证中存在法律定位不准等一些问题,应针对这些问题提出相应的对策。     

When it pays to be honest: How a variable period of good conduct can improve incentives in personal bankruptcy proceedings

Consumer bankruptcy regulation in the United States as well as in many other countries allow consumers to petition for a partial debt discharge. Usually, a debt release is possible when the debtor behaves in the creditors’ best interest and after filing for bankruptcy signs over her entire disposable income for a fixed period. Depending on the country the period lasts between three and six years. We show that a fixed period distorts the consumer’s ex-post incentives to work hard. Instead, we suggest to adequately reduce the outstanding claim and to make debt release contingent on payment. When the consumer manages to pay back the reduced amount, the rest of the initial debt should be discharged immediately. In effect, the consumer becomes the residual claimant of her endeavors. The period of good conduct is effectively variable. JEL classification D18. D91. K29     

消费伦理观转变的理性反思

消费伦理观具有时代性,不同的时代会有不同的消费伦理观引导着人们。我国长期在崇俭黜奢的消费伦理观的左右下,消费的形式多为生存性的物质消费,具有明显的保守性。随着经济的发展,我国人民的消费观念和消费方式发生了巨大的变革,这种消费伦理观念的变化在给人们的消费方式带来发展的同时出现了一些新的消费观,如享乐主义的消费观、信贷消费观、冲动性消费观等。因此,在社会转型期要继承和发扬传统消费观念中的优秀部分,合理分配消费比例,努力倡导可持续消费和绿色消费,用一种科学、健康的消费伦理观念引导人们的生活。     

Summary of selected parts of Kautsky's

This paper covers two major contentious points in the history of the relationship between the sciences and social thought - the question of the character of ideological intervention within the sciences and the effect of a scientific discovery upon the ideological and cultural milieu in which it appears. In particular it uses the construction of Darwin's Descent of Manto illustrate a number of general points about this relationship.