论人类共同继承财产原则

人类共同继承财产原则虽然在国际社会获得了广泛的一致性,但对其具体内容,仍是莫衷一是,本文以“区域”及其资源为切入点,从人类共同利益出发,探讨了该原则的本质、内容及实践,并结合我国国情,简要阐述了人类共同继承财产原则与我国的关系。     

“国家秘密”理念与“合法伤害权”消解

国家秘密界定的模糊性易导致公众知政权的“合法伤害”，调整“国家秘密”理念有助于“合法伤害权”的消解。理性设立国家保密事项的合理界限应该确立两项基本原则：以信息的公开是否存在“明显而即刻的危险或损害”作为秘密事项判断的标准，且危险或损害的“明显”而“即刻”性预测是合理的；基于前一原则强调公民权利的满足而非政府权力的到位，对于不明显符合上述原则的那些信息，应以公开而非保密为优先考虑。     

闽东少数民族“造福工程”的调查与思考

福建省将以自愿移民搬迁的方式解决生存条件恶劣地区群众贫困问题的工作称之为“造福工程”，闽东民族乡村是“造福工程”的最早实施者与受惠者。闽东各级政府在实施这一系统性工程的过程中，从成立工作机构、制定工作计划，到筛选搬迁对象、组织实施，积累了宝贵的经验，对这一工程的考察与思考，旨在为我省今后的反贫困工作提供借鉴意义。     

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.     

Rethinking the one-stop-shop mechanism: Legal certainty and legitimate expectation

This paper aims to contribute to the discussion concerning the one-stop-shop mechanism proposed in the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter “GDPR”). The choice of regulation as the instrument to legislate on data protection is already an unmistakable indication that unification and simplification (together with respect of data subjects' interests) shall be the guide for every legal discussion on the matter. The one-stop-shop mechanism (hereinafter “OSS”) clearly reflects the unification and simplification which the reform aims for. We believe that OSS is logically connected with the idea of one Data Protection Authority (hereinafter “DPA”) with an exclusive jurisdiction and that this can only mean that, given one controller, no other DPA can be a competent authority.² In other words, OSS implies a single and comprehensive competent authority of a given controller. In our analysis we argue that such architecture: a) works well with the “consistency mechanism”; b) provides guarantees to data subjects for a clear allocation of powers (legal certainty); and c) is not at odds with the complaint lodging procedure. Our position on fundamental questions is as follows. What is the perimeter of competence of the DPA in charge? We believe that it should have enforcement power on every issue of the controller, including issuing the fines. How to reconcile such dominant role of one DPA with the principle of co-operation among DPAs? We do not consider co-operation at odds with the rule that decisions are taken by just one single authority. Finally, we share some suggestions on how to make the jurisdiction allocation mechanism (the main establishment criterion) more straightforward.     

大学生创业背景下高校消费合作社构建研究——以安徽财经大学本科生342份问卷为样本

高校消费合作社的构建过程,涵盖从初始阶段的资金筹集、店铺选址,到运营管理中的战略选择、业务分类和团队组成等各个环节。高校消费合作社的建立旨在满足高校大学生这一特殊群体的消费需求,构建时应当充分了解大学生的消费水平及特征,结合大学生对构建方式的倾向,根据不同背景,形成最佳方案。     

违法合同的效力判定路径之辨识

《合同法》第52条第5项及其司法解释对于纠正违法即无效的错误认识曾起到了历史性作用。但现有的学说及现行立法在就违法合同效力的判定路径上却存在着方向性的偏差,于司法实践并不具有真正的指导意义:区分民法内的强制规范与民法外的强制规范而异其效力,在我国并不可行;通过语义分析尚难以发现强制规范之所在;而将违法之法简单缩限为法律、行政法规上的效力性强制性规定,并不妥当,亦难以操作,且于价值及逻辑层面多有疑问;此外,将违法与损害社会公共利益予以并列,在逻辑上也有不合。故应将违法合同的效力判定纳入《合同法》第52条第4项,通过规范目的的发现及利益的衡量来最终确定违法合同的命运。     

Data protection in Europe – Some thoughts on reading the academic manifesto

The commentary by academics on the proposed European General Data Protection Regulation in [2013] 29 CLSR 180 has provoked thoughts in response. The responder strongly agrees with the doubts expressed about the definition of personal data, anonymisation and the identifiability of individuals. On the other hand, he disagrees with the views on consent and legitimacy and proposes support for a risk-based approach to data protection. He suggests that data protection does not need to be defended from the attack that it stifles business, but is justifiable for its assertion of fundamental rights. In conclusion, he shares the criticism of the European Commission's delegated and implementing powers and is concerned that the Regulation will be rushed to a conclusion for reasons of political ambition.     

论HIV感染者/AIDS患者的婚姻自主权

政府歧视性对待HIV感染者 /AIDS患者婚姻自主权的法规在一定程度上加剧了社会本就存在对HIVAIDS相关者的羞辱与歧视 .维护社会公共利益成为剥夺HIV感染者 /AIDS患者的婚姻自主权的理由 ,其根源是要求个人人权屈服于政府的干预手段 ,使人权的目标与社会公共利益对立起来。正确的法律选择是尊重HIV感染者 /AIDS患者婚姻自主权 ,采取正确合理的干预措施 ,真正维护社会公共利益。