论《食品安全法》中的新型民事责任

为降低消费者的维权成本与经营者的违法收益、提高消费者的维权收益与经营者的违法成本,《食品安全法》创设了集中交易市场开办者对消费者的连带责任、虚假代言人对消费者的连带责任以及10倍惩罚性赔偿责任。三类民事责任都有充分的法理依据,特定的构成要件,在司法实践中有可能引起相关争议。     

网络消费者权益的法律保护

随着世界电子商务的快速发展,人们利用网络进行的消费越来越多,但是在网络中消费者的合法权益却经常遭受侵害,有关立法也相对滞后。我国在网络消费者权益保护方面还存在一系列问题,应该对这些问题采取有针对性的对策,从而为建立有效的网络消费者权益保护机制奠定基础。     

Tracing policy influence of diffuse interests: the post-crisis consumer finance protection politics in the US

Dodd–Frank, the financial reform law passed in the United States in response to the 2008 financial crisis, established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new federal regulator with the sole responsibility of protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. This decision marked the end of a highly politicized reform debate in the US Congress, in which proponents of the new bureau would normally have been considered to be much weaker than its opponents. Paradoxically, an emerging civil society coalition successfully lobbied decision-makers and countered industry attempts to prevent industry capture. What explains the fact that rather weak and peripheral actors prevailed over more resourceful and dominant actors? The goal of this study is to examine and challenge questions of regulatory capture by concentrated industry interests in the reform debates in response to the credit crisis which originated in the US in 2007. The analysis suggests that for weak actors to prevail in policy conflicts over established, resource-rich opponents, they must undertake broad coalition building among themselves and with influential elite allies outside and inside of Congress who share the same policy goals.     

Can the hidden hand of the market be an effective and legitimate regulator? The case of animal welfare under a labeling for consumer choice policy approach

In Australia, labeling for consumer choice, rather than higher government regulation, has become an important strand of the policy approach to addressing food animal welfare. This paper illustrates the usefulness of “regulatory network analysis” to uncover the potentials and limitations of market‐based governance to address contentious yet significant issues like animal welfare. We analyzed the content of newspaper articles from major Australian newspapers and official policy documents between 1990 and 2014 to show how the regulatory network influenced the framing of the regulatory problem, and the capacity and legitimacy of different regulatory actors at three “flashpoints” of decisionmaking about layer hen welfare in egg production. We suggest that the government policy of offering consumers the choice to buy cage free in the market allowed large‐scale industry to continue the egg laying business as usual with incremental innovation and adjustment. These incremental improvements only apply to the 20 percent or so of hens producing “free‐range” eggs. We conclude with a discussion of when and how labeling for consumer choice might create markets and public discourses that make possible more effective and legitimate regulation of issues such as layer hen welfare.     

Policies for Decent Labour Standards in Britain

Decent labour standards are a prerequisite for perceived justice and social cohesion. Insofar as they have been achieved in Britain in the past, it has been the result of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions. This has all but vanished in the private sector and, it is argued, there is no chance of its being revived. Upholding labour standards now lies in the provision of statutory individual employment rights. Experience with minimum wages provides some guidance on how these might be developed through social partnership arrangements. Once achieved, such rights amount to little without effective enforcement. Increasingly important for this is the use of the law and consumer campaigns to expose poor employment practices and complex supply chains so that offending employers can be held to account. If Britain is to avoid falling into a competitive ‘race to the bottom’ with Brexit, it must institute a robust means of implementing and enforcing decent labour standards.     

Testing responsive regulation in regulatory enforcement

The policy ideals of responsive regulation have been developed on the basis of substantial empirical evidence. The overall formulation of responsive regulation theory itself, however, has rarely been empirically tested. This article sets out the theoretical concept of responsive regulation in the context of business regulation enforcement and discusses how we might operationalize and empirically measure it. We develop two alternative theoretical interpretations of responsive regulatory enforcement: “tit for tat” responsive regulation and “restorative justice” responsive regulation. We then measure business firms' perceptions of the reactions and counter‐reactions of a regulatory enforcement agency throughout the investigation and enforcement process. We find little evidence of tit for tat responsiveness actually occurring in practice. To the extent that tit for tat responsiveness does exist, we find a small amount of evidence that it has the hypothesized effects on behavior but not on attitudes. We find clearer evidence of restorative justice responsiveness having the hypothesized effects on attitudes but not on behavior.     

试论汽车消费者知情权保护

消费者知情权在现代消费者权益体系中处于基础性地位,是消费者实现其他权利的前提。面对当前汽车消费过程中收费项目繁多、收费依据不明等收费问题,汽车消费者知情权存在行使与救济双重困境。对此,立法方面应对《消费者权益保护法》中知情权的内涵作进一步细化;司法方面应充分考虑交易过程中消费者的弱势地位,构建权利义务双重保护模式,以求汽车经营者与消费者之间的实质公平;政府相关部门可通过设立专门机构、落实信息披露义务加强对汽车销售领域的行政监管;行业协会应发挥作用,构建行业信用体系,畅通信息交互渠道,以实现社会共治背景下的多方位保护汽车消费者知情权。     

弱势群体法律保护的正当性分析──以消费者为例

在当前构建社会主义和谐社会的背景之下,对弱势群体提供法律保护具有正当性。这种正当性可以通过两个方面来说明,其一是在是法的价值层面上,对弱势群体提供法律是实现实质平等的必然要求;其二是在法的实现层面——诉讼制度的实现所必需。     

论消费者纠纷专门仲裁解决机制的构建

消费者纠纷属于民事纠纷的一种,但其有自己的特点.按照《消费者权益保护法》的规定,消费者纠纷可以通过多元化的解决方式得以化解,但多元化的解决途径其实并不多元化,尤其是具有迅速、便利和准司法性质特点的仲裁机制的作用没有被发掘出来.在分析消费者纠纷各种解决方式的基础上,提出建立消费者纠纷专门仲裁解决机制的若干措施、建议.     

个人信息保护视角下的刑事被遗忘权对应义务研究

信息社会催生出被遗忘权，在刑事司法领域延伸产生了刑事被遗忘权。刑事被遗忘权应受严格限制，研究刑事被遗忘权对应的义务对于理解此种权利有重要意义。刑事被遗忘权对应的义务主体包括刑事诉讼专门机关等国家机关、新闻媒体和社会公众。履行相应义务的法定条件为客观、主观和法律特殊保护等方面的原因使得个人数据的使用不合法或不合理。义务类型包括积极义务和消极义务，其中积极义务以封存和删除为主要内容，消极义务以不采集、不存储、不传递为主要内容。相应义务的履行需遵循特定程序，包括权利主体申请、法院审查与裁判、义务主体履行义务等。为保障义务主体履行对应义务，须设置不履行的违法责任，如民事责任、刑事责任、行政机关及其工作人员的法律责任、国家赔偿责任。