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。     

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.     

后现代精神病学对现代精神病学的法哲学反思

中世纪的异教徒"疯子"们被监禁,施以酷刑,流放可谓不堪回首,我们可以说那是因为精神病学的概念还未真正产生。但是,伴随着精神病学的设立,现代精神病学的发展已经由惩罚性收容转变成治疗性措施。精神病人的行为举止让大家感觉到不一样,无法理解。我们对于自己无法理解的事,要么报以莫名的敬畏之心,要么想方设法将它们变得不可见,来获得自己生活的平静,这是对的吗?从法哲学的视角是否应该给予反思和拷问,以探寻精神病学之正义性。本文希望从现代精神病学发展的历史,以法哲学的批判思维分析了现代精神病学的缺陷,并展望后现代精神病学的特质及其替代现代精神病学之发展趋势。     

Reconciliation: I Know It When I see It 1

States emerging from conflict increasingly seek ways in which to address the violence and human rights abuses of the past in order to move forward into a more peaceful future. The initial responses to mass atrocities were based in legal processes focused on the punishment of the person responsible for the harm. The inadequacy of such an approach resulted in the introduction of a variety of new goals in the transitional period, including the abstract notion of reconciliation which is increasingly advanced as the central goal in dealing with the legacy of the past. This article argues that the failure to examine the relationship between a discourse originally based on human rights and legal approaches and the introduction of reconciliation has only added new challenges rather than resolved existing ones and therefore must be re‐examined. The article also argues that no single approach should take prominence in addressing mass atrocities. Rather a range of options should be available to victims, in particular given the relative youth and inexperience of approaches to violent conflict.