当代侵权法比较研究

侵权法在两大法系中所采路径截然不同、风格各异,这一特点与具体规则模式和一般原则模式之间的现代法律理论的区别是相伴而生的。比较侵权法的焦点主要不是实体问题,而是侵权法的基本结构和模式问题。在侵权法的诸多具体制度上,两大法系远比普遍认为的那样更为相近,二者之间并没有不可逾越的障碍和差别。     

论传统手工技艺的商业秘密保护

传统手工技艺是非物质文化遗产的重要组成部分。随着全球经济的发展,产业化、国际化进程给传统手工技艺带来了前所未有的冲击,因此,如何保护我国传统手工技艺已刻不容缓。本文从界定传统手工技艺的范畴入手,重点分析了当前我国传统手工技艺的发展现状,并在此基础上提出了适用商业秘密保护传统手工技艺的措施,特别是针对我国传统手工技艺适用商业秘密保护存在的困境,提出了解决对策。     

空白刑法规范的特性及其解释

空白罪状由于概括性的委任立法使得规范弹性具有难以避免性和合理性,法律概念的相对性更为明显,部门法规范的易变性也使得其容易出现偏离立法规范目标的情况,对其必须进行刑法的独立规范判断,区分事实问题和法律问题。提倡双向对应的规范解释路径,能够有效地实现概括的类型化转向具体的定型化,获得规范与事实的一致。由于罪刑法定在技术上并无制约作用,因此规范解释空白罪状时,重要的是合理运用解释方法,以得出妥善结论,注重目的解释和体系解释可以有效地实现刑法的规范保护任务。     

继承权放弃相关问题之探析

实践中绝大多数的继承纠纷源于继承人对遗产的争夺,但是放弃继承在实践中亦不鲜见,是继承法律制度研究的一项重要内容。我国关于继承权放弃的立法较为抽象和原则,实务中缺乏可操作性,有必要对继承权放弃的相关理论与实务问题进行阐述和探讨。     

地方政府与企业环境治理合作关系的形成——以太湖流域水污染防治为例

政府对企业环境行为的监管一直面临着三个挑战:由于信息不对称带来的交易成本过高,企业的环境成本与收益不确定,监管方成为被监管方的"俘虏"。在环境危机的压力下,地方政府采取了运动式的环境治理方式,企业面临着不确定的环境管制。地方政府与企业之间往往形成了"同谋"和"零和"关系。在目前中国环境管理制度框架下,地方政府与企业之间能否形成合作关系?本文以太湖流域水污染防治为案例,探索可能的路径和政策选择。     

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。     

From ‘Doctor Knows Best’ to Dignity: Placing Adults Who Lack Capacity at the Centre of Decisions About Their Medical Treatment

In 1989, the House of Lords first derived a ‘best interests’ test for the medical treatment of adults who lack capacity from the doctrine of necessity and, now codified, the test continues to apply today. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out a non‐exhaustive checklist of relevant considerations, but it gives no particular priority to the patient's wishes. There is also no formal expectation that the patient will participate directly in any court proceedings in which her best interests are to be determined. This article will consider the advantages and disadvantages of providing additional guidance to decision‐makers in order to help them navigate both taking seriously the wishes of people who lack capacity and, at the same time, not abandoning patients who need help and support. More specifically, this article advocates formalising current best practice in the Court of Protection through the introduction of a series of rebuttable presumptions, or starting points.     

Are ‘pseudonymised’ data always personal data? Implications of the GDPR for administrative data research in the UK

There has naturally been a good deal of discussion of the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation. One issue of interest to all data controllers, and of particular concern for researchers, is whether the GDPR expands the scope of personal data through the introduction of the term ‘pseudonymisation’ in Article 4(5). If all data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of the word (e.g. key-coded) are to be treated as personal data, this would have serious implications for research. Administrative data research, which is carried out on data routinely collected and held by public authorities, would be particularly affected as the sharing of de-identified data could constitute the unconsented disclosure of identifiable information.Instead, however, we argue that the definition of pseudonymisation in Article 4(5) GDPR will not expand the category of personal data, and that there is no intention that it should do so. The definition of pseudonymisation under the GDPR is not intended to determine whether data are personal data; indeed it is clear that all data falling within this definition are personal data. Rather, it is Recital 26 and its requirement of a ‘means reasonably likely to be used’ which remains the relevant test as to whether data are personal. This leaves open the possibility that data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of key-coding can still be rendered anonymous. There may also be circumstances in which data which have undergone pseudonymisation within one organisation could be anonymous for a third party. We explain how, with reference to the data environment factors as set out in the UK Anonymisation Network's Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework.     

Clarity,surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling

The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party's recent draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling seeks to clarify European data protection (DP) law's little-used right to prevent automated decision-making, as well as the provisions around profiling more broadly, in the run-up to the General Data Protection Regulation. In this paper, we analyse these new guidelines in the context of recent scholarly debates and technological concerns. They foray into the less-trodden areas of bias and non-discrimination, the significance of advertising, the nature of “solely” automated decisions, impacts upon groups and the inference of special categories of data—at times, appearing more to be making or extending rules than to be interpreting them. At the same time, they provide only partial clarity – and perhaps even some extra confusion – around both the much discussed “right to an explanation” and the apparent prohibition on significant automated decisions concerning children. The Working Party appears to feel less mandated to adjudicate in these conflicts between the recitals and the enacting articles than to explore altogether new avenues. Nevertheless, the directions they choose to explore are particularly important ones for the future governance of machine learning and artificial intelligence in Europe and beyond.