物权的本质

物权的本质为何,千百年来吸引许多私法学者尝试提出一家之言。然而,大陆法系多数学者执着干物权乃人与物之关系,走入歧途;普通法主流学者把物权看成一束权利,同样是打迷糊仗。本文主张物权（或本文之名词“财产权”）有三种核心效力：对世、排他、追及。任何与物有关之权利若具备三种核心效力,就是物权。财产是人与人间关于物之法律关系之组合,而非人对物之关系。此种财产关系又可分成四种典型：人对国家、人对定限物权人、人对特定人如邻居、人对所有其他人。除了人面对国家徵收高权时外,财产关系都有或强或弱的排他本质;而此关系乃自动生成,此正是对世效力之本意。追及效力虽然有时隐而未显,但在财产权移转时会当然发挥作用。此外,所有权是财产权,但非后者之同义词。所有权（而非物权）才是一束权能。     

The European Union's approach to online behavioural advertising: Protecting individuals or restricting business?

The European Union (EU) has firmly set its stall out to protect individuals' data and privacy and has demonstrated this through the rejection of the old opt-out regime and the introduction of the new opt-in rules. These require businesses to obtain individual's prior and informed consent before their data are collected, stored and used for the purposes of online behavioural advertising (OBA). Individuals in the EU are afforded protection from the apparent dangers relating to data privacy and misuse that is associated with OBA, which is beyond the expectation of most Internet users. However, there are some criticisms levelled at the law that the EU has produced. Is simply gaining informed consent sufficient for protecting all types of information? Do certain types of information require a higher level of consent than others? Does the law fulfil its aim of protecting data subject's privacy and data? Is the current law restrictive to business? Do individuals know or care that their information is being collected for the purposes of targeted advertising and is there a better way to ensure that they do? Finally, will proposed new law to be found in the EU Data Protection Regulation solve any of these problems? This article will assess whether, as a policy decision, the EU's current approach has been too cautious in its attempts to protect individuals or restrict business.     

Default entitlements in personal data in the proposed Regulation: Informational self-determination off the table … and back on again?

This paper aims to assess the proposed General Data Protection Regulation through the framework of default entitlements in personal data. The notion of default entitlements comes from economic analysis of law and provides new insights into the implications of the data protection reform. While, under the principle of informational self-determination the default entitlements should lie with the individual, the Commission is shown to assign a great deal of default rights to others, including the Information Industry. This article cautions against the possibility of reducing the European system of data protection rooted in the values of individual autonomy and informational self-determination to a mere set of administrative rules channelling the flow of personal data, yet without a clear direction.     

中国(上海)自由贸易试验区知识产权保护研究

中国(上海)自由贸易试验区的建立对推进国内改革与世界市场开放具有里程碑式的意义。我国的自由贸易试验区属于自由贸易园区(FTZ),不同于自由贸易协定下的自由贸易区(FTA),也不同于传统保税区,具有"境内关外"和"一线放开、二线管住"的特征。自由贸易试验区的贸易便利化举措必然使其成为知识产权侵权避风港的可能性急剧上升。但由于相应制度的缺失和认识的偏差,自由贸易试验区可能成为知识产权海关执法的模糊区甚至空白区,同时我国目前的知识产权保护体系与自由贸易试验区寻求的便捷、高效的知识产权市场监管模式和纠纷解决机制相距甚远。从相关国际条约的立法和国内外自由贸易园区的实践来看,在自由贸易园区内实施更加严格的知识产权保护是现在和未来国际知识产权保护的必然趋势。因此,在自由贸易试验区内应加强知识产权海关保护、建立知识产权市场监管体系、完善知识产权纠纷解决机制。     

论共有表演者权

两个以上的民事权利主体就同一表演活动共同享有的表演者权称为共有表演者权。共有表演者权既可以通过共同的表演活动原始产生,也可以通过转让和继承的方式继受取得。共有表演者权的权利主体包括自然人和法人组织,权利对象为静态的表演形象和动态的表演活动,权利内容则具有人身权和财产权的二元属性。共有表演者权的权利归属以及许可、转让等行使规则比较复杂,但我国现行《著作权法》几乎没有规定,应完善相关立法,以约定优先、鼓励传播的原则确立其行使规则。     

从“非正式帝国主义”到“法律帝国主义”:以近代中国的境遇为例

近代国际法理论框架下的"非正式帝国主义",由最初的"自由贸易"模式扩展至政治、司法等诸般间接控制样式。在"非正式帝国"的塑造中,合乎国际法规范的条约具备去疆界化与再疆界化的意义,即破除正式领土帝国的堡垒,重建非正式帝国的藩篱。法律无疑是实现"非正式帝国主义"不可或缺的重要支撑,而它本身也成就为"非正式帝国主义"的一种典型形式——"法律帝国主义"。以近代中国的境遇为例,法律帝国主义所表达的,正是在政策指引之下,借助条约规定方式,以治外法权为基本实践手段,通过司法机构的跨域构建以及法律职业人士的身体力行,以最终达成西方法播散的整体过程。对此,我们应有清醒的认识。     

从融合到分立:儿童网络色情信息犯罪的刑事规制

儿童网络色情信息犯罪侵害的法益是"直接层法益"与"间接层法益"双重法益。"直接层法益"为儿童的身心健康权利与以"免受性剥削和性虐待"为核心的被动性的性权利,"直接层法益"为个人法益;"间接层法益"为性道德等社会法益。而成年人网络色情信息犯罪侵害的主要是基于"性的隐秘性"善良性风尚和性道德的社会法益。法益具有立法检视功能和区分功能,客观上需要将儿童网络色情犯罪与成年人网络色情犯罪分离,进而设置独立的刑事规范,并对儿童网络色情信息范围、犯罪行为类型及网络服务提供商的责任重新进行建构。     

非法使用他人技术秘密完成发明创造的权利归属问题研究

非法使用他人技术秘密完成发明创造的权利归属规则需基于“使用商业秘密”的具体行为类型分别确定。非法使用人直接使用他人技术秘密完成之发明创造系由他人技术秘密直接转化而来,技术秘密权利人可通过变更专利权权属的方式要求非法使用人返还其无形财产。非法使用人根据他人技术秘密调整、优化、改进自身技术方案后完成之发明创造的实质性特点皆由非法使用人创造性地贡献之,故其专利权应归属于非法使用人。非法使用人对技术秘密进行修改、改进后完成之发明创造的实质性特点,尽管由非法使用人与技术秘密权利人共同贡献,但由于双方缺乏能够形成专利权共有关系的法律或事实依据,故其不能由双方共有。此时,专利权权属可由非法使用人主张,技术秘密权利人可主张先用权抗辩。     

Risks and Precautions of Homestead System Reform——the Practice of “the Three Rights Division” in Yiwu

Based on the case study of Yiwu as one of the 33 pilot projects cities of “Three Pieces of Land” in China, this article summarizes the risks and precautions of the reform of homestead system from the perspective of “the Three Rights Division of Homestead”. It also explores into the origin of “the Three Rights Division of Homestead” with the reform documents analysis and the discussion of the existing problems of the homestead system. Then we conduct a case study of the homestead reform in Yiwu, and finally put forward the precautions against the risks of the “Three Rights Division of Homestead”. The research methods used in this study are text analysis and case study. The following precautions are provided in the end of the article: 1) set up the implementation organization of homestead ownership; 2) standardize the conditions for obtaining qualifications for homesteads, and establish the paying system for the use of homesteads and achieve the right of qualification fairness through prices; 3) realize the right of qualification and the right of use, and clarify the power of the rights.     

“To Make It Brilliantly Apparent to the People of Australia”: The Pilbara Cooperative Movement and the Campaign for Aboriginal Civil Rights in the 1950s

During the 1950s an Aboriginal mining cooperative in Western Australia's Pilbara attracted widespread interest as a model for addressing Aboriginal disadvantage throughout Australia. Individuals and organisations involved in the struggle for equal rights for Aboriginal people learned what they could of the ideology, operation and history of the cooperative, chiefly through the writing and speeches of its non-Aboriginal leader and spokesman, Don McLeod. They saw in the Pilbara cooperative a model of Aboriginal-directed change which contrasted markedly with the tutelary monocultural approach of individual “advancement” which characterised state and Commonwealth government assimilation policy at the time. The intense interest shown in the cooperative by the Victorian Council for Aboriginal Rights, in particular, provides evidence that throughout the 1950s campaigners sought alternative solutions to Aboriginal disadvantage to those proposed under assimilation policy.