(Non)Regulable avoidance and the perils of punishment

Efforts to avoid punishment are generally deemed undesirable and therefore punished or otherwise regulated. In reality, however, not all avoidance efforts are punishable or regulable, at least not to the same degree. For practical or sometimes constitutional reasons, certain efforts to avoid punishment, such as non-creation of incrementing evidence or zealous criminal litigation, are non-punishable. This paper examines whether and under what conditions it is wise to deter avoidance efforts in a setting with multiple avoidance activities, some of which are non-regulable/punishable. The main results of this paper are that deterring certain avoidance activities does not necessarily: (i) decrease the extent to which offenders engage in avoidance activities; and (ii) more importantly, improve deterrence of the principal crimes. Normatively, then, it might be better to let certain punishable avoidance activities go unpunished or, more surprisingly, even to subsidize them. This calls into question recent responses by lawmakers after evidentiary fouls, such as those at Enron, WorldCom and HealthSouth, to stiffen penalties for obstruction of justice.

银监会法律性质研究

2003年中国银监会的成立是我国金融监管机制步向专业化与法治化的一个重要举措。但银监会＂国务院直属正部级事业单位＂的现有定位广受诟病。＂事业单位＂的定性使国务院组成部门、直属机构和事业单位的界限变得模糊不清;＂正部级＂的冠名使得行政级别的设置进一步强化;＂国务院直属＂的设置模式无法保证银监会监管的独立性。从银监会的专业性、独立性、权力混合性及其履行职责的性质来看,其应当定性为国家经济调制机关。     

The necessity of the implementation of Privacy by Design in sectors where data protection concerns arise

This article examines the extent to which Privacy by Design can safeguard privacy and personal data within a rapidly evolving society. This paper will first briefly explain the theoretical concept and the general principles of Privacy by Design, as laid down in the General Data Protection Regulation. Then, by indicating specific examples of the implementation of the Privacy by Design approach, it will be demonstrated why the implementation of Privacy by Design is a necessity in a number of sectors where specific data protection concerns arise (biometrics, e-health and video-surveillance) and how it can be implemented.     

Human Rights Watch v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Victim Status,Extraterritoriality and the Search for Principled Reasoning

In Human Rights Watch v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal found that the relevant standard of ‘victim status’ that applies in secret surveillance cases consists in a potential risk of being subjected to surveillance and that the European Convention on Human Rights does not apply to the surveillance of individuals who reside outside of the UK. This note argues that the Tribunal's finding regarding the victim status of the applicants was sound but that the underlying reasoning was not. It concludes that the Tribunal's finding on extraterritoriality is unsatisfactory and that its engagement with the European Court of Human Rights case law on the matter lacked depth. Finally, the note considers the defects of the Human Rights Watch case, and the case law on extraterritoriality more generally, against the backdrop of the place of principled reasoning in human rights adjudication.     

政府对新闻自由管制标准管窥

新闻自由与政府管制是一对矛盾的统一体 ,没有政府管制的新闻自由会导致对公共利益和私人利益的侵害 ;没有新闻自由的政府管制会导致专制与独裁。对新闻自由的管制 ,最重要的是确定管制标准。美国的新闻自由管制标准主要有“明显且即刻危险原则”和“逐案权衡原则”。我国宜在区分“公言论”与“私言论”的基础上 ,分别借鉴“明显且即刻危险原则”和“逐案权衡原则”确立对新闻自由管制的标准。     

论海德格尔的此在解释学

海德格尔运用现象学的方法,通过对此在存在的基本结构,从现身、领会以及此在与时间等几个方面的解析,从而建立了基础的存在论,也就是此在解释学.此在解释学的建立标志解释学进入了现代形态--哲学解释学.     

法律趋同视角下的欧盟统一公司立法研究

欧盟统一公司立法创设了超国家层面的商事主体——欧洲公司和欧洲私人公司;资本制度更自由,公司治理更灵活,促进了各成员国公司法制度的趋同。统一公司立法也受制于各国的法律传统、利益集团和路径依赖等因素。欧盟成员国包括了大陆法系和英美法系国家,其公司立法的成果与争议,反映了两大法系公司法制度融合与竞争的发展趋势,值得在我国《公司法》修改完善中加以借鉴。     

公法与私法融合的法律调整模式——环境管理中经济刺激手段的运用

在解决环境外部性的问题上,经济手段会比行政手段产生更大的利益激励机制和效率弹性。经济手段的作用在于通过对环境资源予以定价,将同环境污染与利用等相关的外部成本全部反映到企业的生产成本中,促使企业基于利益最大化的考虑,作出最有利于环境的经济决策。因此,在环境政策的执行中加大运用收费、补贴、押金、排污权交易、环境税、环境责任保险等经济手段的力度是大势所趋。对环境问题的调节,在法律层面上,要求的是既具有私法的建立在意思自治基础上的内在激励机制,又有公法从整体利益出发保障国家介入经济活动的干预机制。     

个人信息的双重属性与行为主义规制

个人信息的法律保护依赖于公法对个人信息的定位。在公法与公法理论上,有两种看待个人信息的观点。一种观点认为个人信息权是一种基本权利,个人信息应当受到法律的确权保护;另一种观点则将个人信息视为他人言论自由的对象,个人信息的自由获取与使用受到法律保护。但这两种观点都无法从整体上理解个人信息,个人信息权的观点忽视了个人信息的自由流通属性与公共属性,而个人信息作为言论自由对象的观点则忽视了个人信息背后的多重权益。个人信息兼具个体属性与社会流通属性,应当确立一种个人信息相关权益被保护权。从个人信息的双重属性出发,个人信息保护应当在具体场景中确立个人信息收集与利用行为的合理边界。基于场景的行为主义规制更为符合个人信息保护的根本特征,也将为中国的个人信息保护提供一条超越欧美的中国道路。