政府信息公开诉讼原告资格问题研究

《政府信息公开条例》拓展了行政诉讼原告资格标准和范围,第一次明确赋予行政相对人对"获取政府信息"权利的救济权,但这种拓展本身是有限度的,不能脱离开现行制度、环境以及法治发展阶段而无限制扩大。司法实践中,应当按照权利保障、法治、利益衡量、司法资源优化配置和渐进发展原则,通过丰富行政诉讼原告资格关于行为可诉性、利害关系性、时机成熟性等制度内涵,依法科学、理性地把握和设定信息公开行政诉讼原告资格标准。     

发达国家网络信息内容治理模式

通过比较分析和实证分析等方法,本文对发达国家网络信息内容安全管理理念与实践演化路径进行了研究。研究结果表明,传统的以机密性、可用性、完整性三要素为核心的信息安全理论已经无法解释越来越复杂的网络信息安全管理问题。网络信息内容本身的社会危害性问题成为传统信息安全管理的悖论。以"9.11"为标志,西方发达国家对网络信息内容的管理理念开始发生重大转变,并初步形成网络信息内容安全管理模式的雏形。文章的研究对于开展中国特色网络信息内容治理理论的研究和管理实践模式的探索具有客观的参考意义。     

当前“非传统安全”问题在我国的表现及应对策略

当前,经济、环境、信息、人口、重大疾病等诸多的“非传统安全”问题已经成为危机国家安全的重要因素。认真探讨“非传统安全”问题的内涵、特点及在我国的具体表现,找出我国防范“非传统安全”问题的应对策略,对于维护我国的国家安全具有重要意义。     

以教育信息化发展为契机构建公安高等教育新局面

在经济社会和信息技术快速发展的今天,公安高等教育面临发展的挑战和机遇。学科知识创新和教育信息技术创新是高等教育结构调整与改革的两个关键环节。学科知识创新使公安高等教育学科知识结构趋于更加合理的重组,教育信息技术创新从教学设计思想到公安实践与理论都突破了原有教材设计的局限性,两者构成了教学完整的系统设计思想。教育信息技术的有效应用是公安高等教育发展新的增长点,校园网的建设为公安教育信息化打下了坚实的基础,教育信息技术平台的构建催生了公安高等教育“学科联合体”教学新模式,民警无线移动媒体学习成为新一代公安教育的展开方式。     

To Disclose or not to Disclose? That is the Question in Collaborative Law

Collaborative Law (CL) is a dispute resolution process increasingly used in family law and divorce designed to encourage problem solving negotiations by parties represented by counsel. Many states have adapted legislation to authorize and facilitate CL and thousands of lawyers have been trained in the CL process. CL lawyers and participants sign a Participation Agreement in which they agree that the lawyers will be disqualified if the CL process terminates without settlement. They also promise full and voluntary disclosure of information. The extent of the obligation of disclosure is, however, unclear. Through analysis of an extended hypothetical divorce settlement negotiation, this article advocates that CL lawyers and clients should assume an obligation to disclose material facts without a request from the other side. Traditional legal ethics, based on an adversarial framework, requires only disclosure of information when requested by another party. In addition, in traditional legal ethics, a lawyer cannot disclose information obtained in the course of the lawyer‐client relationship without the client's consent even if material to the negotiation. Some authority regulating CL, however, suggests that CL participants and counsel should disclose material information without a specific request even if a client does not want the information disclosed. In that situation, the CL lawyer should encourage the client to disclose the information but if the client refuses to do so, withdraw from the representation. This Article reviews the arguments for and against an obligation of affirmative disclosure in CL. It suggests that affirmative disclosure obligations should be the subject of discussion between CL participants and lawyers and that CL Participation Agreements should be drafted to establish a clear obligation. Finally, this article identifies key areas for further discussion and research on CL disclosure obligations.     

处置突发性公共事件时应对新闻传媒的策略

在处置突发性公共事件时,新闻传媒的作用不可忽视。为保证妥善处置突发性公共事件,公安机关应当认真研究应对新闻传媒的策略,准确把握突发性公共事件中新闻传媒的介入时间、方式,以引导新闻传媒正确发挥舆论导向作用。     

DNA数据库比对技术在刑事侦查中运用的合宪性问题

DNA数据库比对技术实质上是基因检测技术和大数据处理技术相结合的产物。DNA数据库比对技术可以精确锁定犯罪嫌疑人,由于其强大的证明能力而被广泛地运用于刑事侦查,各国都积极推动DNA数据库的建立。DNA数据库比对技术在维护了社会安全的同时也对公民基因隐私构成极大威胁。如何在技术的运用和隐私权保障之间做出更好的平衡,是DNA比对技术的合宪性争议的中心。廓清了合宪性问题,我们才可以更好地制定相关法律,消弭合宪性问题,在保障公民隐私权的同时也更好地维护社会安全。     

数据安全认证:个人信息保护的第三方规制

契合"放管服"改革理念的数据安全认证,在数字时代整个规制法体系中必将占据日益重要的地位。数据安全认证通过声誉评价机制,可以引导、激励互联网企业守法合规经营,可以增强用户对中小微互联网企业和新兴数字产业的信任感,可以避免"一刀切"的政府规制,可以满足社会公众多元的数据安全需求。数据安全认证机构应具有高度的独立性与专业性,防止其被互联网企业"俘获"或成为政府的"附庸"。宜实行自愿为主、强制为辅的数据安全认证模式。认证程序应强调公正透明性,认证标准应注重评价企业数据合规的制度建设。根据过错责任原则,分别设置数据安全认证机构"相应的赔偿责任"或"连带责任",并加大对数据安全认证违法行为的公法责任追究。科学构建法治化的数据安全认证体制机制,不仅是保障数据安全的现实需要,而且是弥补数字时代政府规制缺陷的迫切需求。     

香港特区的政府资讯公开——以免费电视牌照事件为文本的分析

曾有学者评价香港特区是一个"回避法定知情权的开放政府"。1这一独特的制度究竟是如何运作的,颇令人好奇。2013年,免费电视牌照事件持续发酵,一波三折。透过该事件,可以看到立法机关脱离了行政机关,变成行政机关的监察者、制衡者与竞争者;独立的司法机关的政治影响力也越来越大。如何处理好保密与公开的关系、处理好行政效率与公众利益的关系,如何更能回应民众诉求,如何进一步提升施政能力和水平,都是摆在政府面前的重大课题。     

How can European states respond to Russian information warfare? An analytical framework

How can European democratic states respond to Russian information warfare? This article aims to enable and spur systematic research of how democracies can respond to the spread of distorted information as part of information warfare. The article proposes four ideal-type models representing different strategies that democratic governments can employ; blocking, confronting, naturalising and ignoring. Each strategy is illustrated by ways of empirical examples of strategies applied by European states in view of what is regarded as an unwelcome Russian strategic narrative that is spread as part of information warfare. We problematise each strategy and explore reasons for why states choose one strategy over another. We then explore how different strategies might contribute to destabilise or stabilise the security environment and how they resonate with democratic values. Finally, we contribute to theorising on strategic narratives by highlighting that the choice of strategy will influence states in their formation of strategic narratives. We thus further theorising on strategic narratives by highlighting the link between strategies and narratives, thus identifying one central dynamic in how narratives are formed.