在竞争合规领域，普遍存在的“威慑陷阱”现象反映了我国传统简单威慑的固有缺陷，有鉴于此，一套能将外部法律规制等效转化为企业合规自觉的激励体系必不可少。在将Lawler-Porter综合激励模型引入到我国竞争合规制度领域的过程中，达成“工作绩效”是激励机制的基本目标，立法、执法、司法是法律上的三大主要推进路径。适用严格责任、将合规作为法定量刑情节等立法措施能从外在环境上激发企业的合规努力，合规风险提示、宽恕政策等执法手段在事后奖励方面推进企业合规体系建设，综合认定的司法理念则会进一步增强企业的公平感。通过以Lawler-Porter内在逻辑为核心，借鉴海外企业合规的先进经验构建的一套完整循环的竞争合规激励机制，能够从根源上提高企业合规参与度与积极性，从而为推动我国竞争合规制度的不断完善提供参考路径。 In the field of competitive compliance, the widespread phenomenon of “deterrence trap” reflects the inherent defects of China’s traditional simple deterrence. In view of this, a set of incentive mechanism that can equivalently change the external regulation into the compliance consciousness of enterprises is essential. In the process of introducing Lawler-Porter Comprehensive Incentive Model into the field of China’s competition compliance system, achieving “job performance” is the basic goal of the incentive mechanism, legislation, law enforcement and justice are the three main promotion paths in law. The application of legislative measures such as strict liability and taking compliance as a legal sentencing circumstance can stimulate the compliance efforts of enterprises from the external environment. Law enforcement means such as compliance risk prompt and leniency policy can promote the construction of enterprise compliance system in terms of afterwards reward, and the comprehensive judicial concept will further enhance the sense of fairness of enterprises. Through a complete cycle of competitive compliance incentive mechanism and with the help of advanced experience in compliance from overseas enterprises, we can improve the compliance participation and enthusiasm of enterprises from the root, thus offering a reference path for promoting the continuous improvement of China’s competitive compliance system.
{"title":"基于Lawler-Porter综合激励模型的竞争合规制度建构探析","authors":"Zhuoyuan Zhang","doi":"10.55574/ertn5220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55574/ertn5220","url":null,"abstract":"在竞争合规领域，普遍存在的“威慑陷阱”现象反映了我国传统简单威慑的固有缺陷，有鉴于此，一套能将外部法律规制等效转化为企业合规自觉的激励体系必不可少。在将Lawler-Porter综合激励模型引入到我国竞争合规制度领域的过程中，达成“工作绩效”是激励机制的基本目标，立法、执法、司法是法律上的三大主要推进路径。适用严格责任、将合规作为法定量刑情节等立法措施能从外在环境上激发企业的合规努力，合规风险提示、宽恕政策等执法手段在事后奖励方面推进企业合规体系建设，综合认定的司法理念则会进一步增强企业的公平感。通过以Lawler-Porter内在逻辑为核心，借鉴海外企业合规的先进经验构建的一套完整循环的竞争合规激励机制，能够从根源上提高企业合规参与度与积极性，从而为推动我国竞争合规制度的不断完善提供参考路径。 In the field of competitive compliance, the widespread phenomenon of “deterrence trap” reflects the inherent defects of China’s traditional simple deterrence. In view of this, a set of incentive mechanism that can equivalently change the external regulation into the compliance consciousness of enterprises is essential. In the process of introducing Lawler-Porter Comprehensive Incentive Model into the field of China’s competition compliance system, achieving “job performance” is the basic goal of the incentive mechanism, legislation, law enforcement and justice are the three main promotion paths in law. The application of legislative measures such as strict liability and taking compliance as a legal sentencing circumstance can stimulate the compliance efforts of enterprises from the external environment. Law enforcement means such as compliance risk prompt and leniency policy can promote the construction of enterprise compliance system in terms of afterwards reward, and the comprehensive judicial concept will further enhance the sense of fairness of enterprises. Through a complete cycle of competitive compliance incentive mechanism and with the help of advanced experience in compliance from overseas enterprises, we can improve the compliance participation and enthusiasm of enterprises from the root, thus offering a reference path for promoting the continuous improvement of China’s competitive compliance system.","PeriodicalId":512508,"journal":{"name":"China Law Journal","volume":"45 31","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141384538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
《中美科技合作协定》的签署历程与发展历史解释了中美两国签订该协定的动因与维持双边科技合作关系的考量，并深刻揭示了两国科技合作关系背后的经济与政治博弈。现阶段，美国对华战略认知的调整与其将科技问题安全化的倾向导致了《中美科技合作协定》遭遇续签危机，其未来走向成为中美各界尤其关心的问题。博弈论为中美科技关系的战略转型提供有效的分析框架。其中，中美猎鹿博弈模型揭示了美国对华科技脱钩力度较弱的情况下双方进行合作的进路，而重复囚徒困境博弈模型则指出长期合作与互信的建立才是中美实现双赢的关键。中美两国应努力消除分歧，构建合作与竞争并存的新型关系，避免零和游戏，共同推动科技进步和全球发展。 The signing process and development of the US-China Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement (US-China S&T Cooperation Agreement) explain the reasons for the signing of the agreement and the considerations for maintaining the bilateral S&T cooperation relationship between China and the US, and deeply reveals the economic and political games behind the S&T cooperation relationship between the two countries. At this stage, the adjustment of the U.S. strategic perception of China and its tendency to securitize science and technology issues have led to the renewal crisis of the US-China S&T Cooperation Agreement, and its future direction has become an issue of particular concern to all sectors in the U.S. and China. Game theory provides an effective analytical framework for the strategic transformation of Sino-US S&T relations. The Stag Hunt Game Model reveals the way forward for cooperation between the two sides in the case of weak US S&T decoupling from China, while the Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Model points out that the establishment of long-term cooperation and mutual trust is the key to achieving a win-win situation for both China and the US. China and the United States should strive to eliminate differences, build a new type of relationship where cooperation and competition coexist, avoid zero-sum games, and jointly promote scientific and technological progress and global development.
{"title":"《中美科技合作协定》的回顾及其展望——基于博弈论的视角","authors":"Haopeng Wang, Feifan Hu","doi":"10.55574/qhlq5232","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55574/qhlq5232","url":null,"abstract":"《中美科技合作协定》的签署历程与发展历史解释了中美两国签订该协定的动因与维持双边科技合作关系的考量，并深刻揭示了两国科技合作关系背后的经济与政治博弈。现阶段，美国对华战略认知的调整与其将科技问题安全化的倾向导致了《中美科技合作协定》遭遇续签危机，其未来走向成为中美各界尤其关心的问题。博弈论为中美科技关系的战略转型提供有效的分析框架。其中，中美猎鹿博弈模型揭示了美国对华科技脱钩力度较弱的情况下双方进行合作的进路，而重复囚徒困境博弈模型则指出长期合作与互信的建立才是中美实现双赢的关键。中美两国应努力消除分歧，构建合作与竞争并存的新型关系，避免零和游戏，共同推动科技进步和全球发展。 The signing process and development of the US-China Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement (US-China S&T Cooperation Agreement) explain the reasons for the signing of the agreement and the considerations for maintaining the bilateral S&T cooperation relationship between China and the US, and deeply reveals the economic and political games behind the S&T cooperation relationship between the two countries. At this stage, the adjustment of the U.S. strategic perception of China and its tendency to securitize science and technology issues have led to the renewal crisis of the US-China S&T Cooperation Agreement, and its future direction has become an issue of particular concern to all sectors in the U.S. and China. Game theory provides an effective analytical framework for the strategic transformation of Sino-US S&T relations. The Stag Hunt Game Model reveals the way forward for cooperation between the two sides in the case of weak US S&T decoupling from China, while the Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Model points out that the establishment of long-term cooperation and mutual trust is the key to achieving a win-win situation for both China and the US. China and the United States should strive to eliminate differences, build a new type of relationship where cooperation and competition coexist, avoid zero-sum games, and jointly promote scientific and technological progress and global development.","PeriodicalId":512508,"journal":{"name":"China Law Journal","volume":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141385911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
无人遵守且无法实施的法律与诗歌无异——虽悦耳动听，但对我们生活的现实世界鲜有影响。现有的研究并未完全把国际规范和遵守国际法律义务统一起来;甚至需要达成广泛共识来实现国际协作的领域，也没有完全达成一致。受各国固有主权、参差不齐的经济发展水平、以及种类繁多的政治优先事项影响，遵守国际义务并不是一件容易的事。本文将考察有关国际航空安全的法律法规，同时也会论及在遵守国际义务中单边及多边所做出的努力。国际商业航空提供了有价值的研究案例，让国际社会在守法的前提下，得以共同探寻互利的可能性。国际习惯法、国际组织颁布的类法律准则，以及国内法规与程序法，增进了我们对复杂国际企业的理解，比如，商业航空公司是如何在国际舞台发挥其影响力的。1944年，国际社会急待通过统一的立法来保障航空安全。这需要一个管理国际航空的组织，其不仅享有制定国际航空安全规则的准立法权，同时也有权强制让成员国通过国内法来执行这些规则。然而，除了主要成员国和国际组织所做的努力，这一目标推进得十分缓慢。因此，把航空安全作为一个典型课题，不仅可以研究国家遵守国际义务的意愿和能力，还可探索激励或强制履行国际义务的方式。这一研究之所以重要，还有一个更加现实的原因，即安全（safety）和保安（security）密切相关。对二者进行规定，除了可以避免人身损害和财产损失，最重要的是可以防止人们失去生命。不过，二者也存在区别。安全的规定用来预防意外伤害，而保安的规定则用来预防故意伤害。正如普通法中过错责任（fault-based negligence）和故意侵权（intentional torts）的区别：后者比前者的过错更大，且会面临更加严格的惩罚。2001年9月11日的悲剧后，保安成为国际航空界最为关心的目标。可实际上，乘客死于航空安全的概率比死于空中恐怖袭击的概率高出10倍。因此，研究航空安全在实践中的重要性，其意义远大于充满感情色彩的航空保安研究。在商业航空中，安全的优先级一定是最高的。统计数据表明，国际航空的安全性近年来显著提升。究其原因，一方面归功于日益进步的技术，另一方面也得益于不断完善的法律。本文关注的是后一个问题。 Law without compliance and enforcement is like poetry – it is pleasing to the ear, but has little to do with the practical world in which we live. The study of efforts to achieve uniformity in international norms and compliance with international legal obligations reveals mixed success, even in areas where there is widespread consensus for the need to have international harmony. Given the inherent sovereignty of states, the heterogeneous levels of economic ability, and the diversity of political priorities, securing compliance with international obligations is rarely an effortless task. This article addresses legal norms governing international aviation safety, as well as both unilateral and multilateral efforts to achieve state compliance with those international legal obligations. Commercial international aviation provides a useful case study of how the world community seeks to achieve mutual self-interest by securing global harmony in law. The interplay between conventional international law, quasi-legal standards promulgated by international organizations, and national laws, regulations, and procedures offers insights as to how complex international enterprises, such as commercial aviation, play on the world stage. In 1944, the world community acknowledged the need to achieve safety in international aviation through uniformity in law by establishing an organization to govern international aviation, conferring upon it quasi-legislative power to prescribe standards governing international aviation safety, and obliging member states to implement these standards through their domestic laws. Despite the efforts of major aviation nations and international organizations, those goals are only sluggishly being achieved. Thus, aviation safety can serve as a case study to inquire into the ability and willingness, on the one hand, or inability and unwillingness, on the other, of states to conform to their international obligations and the means by which they can be encouraged, or coerced, to comply. This inquiry is important for another less theoretical and more practica
{"title":"国际法的遵守与实施：航空安全迈向全球统一","authors":"Paul Stephen Dempsey, Leiyin Wang","doi":"10.55574/gnzy3829","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55574/gnzy3829","url":null,"abstract":"无人遵守且无法实施的法律与诗歌无异——虽悦耳动听，但对我们生活的现实世界鲜有影响。现有的研究并未完全把国际规范和遵守国际法律义务统一起来;甚至需要达成广泛共识来实现国际协作的领域，也没有完全达成一致。受各国固有主权、参差不齐的经济发展水平、以及种类繁多的政治优先事项影响，遵守国际义务并不是一件容易的事。本文将考察有关国际航空安全的法律法规，同时也会论及在遵守国际义务中单边及多边所做出的努力。国际商业航空提供了有价值的研究案例，让国际社会在守法的前提下，得以共同探寻互利的可能性。国际习惯法、国际组织颁布的类法律准则，以及国内法规与程序法，增进了我们对复杂国际企业的理解，比如，商业航空公司是如何在国际舞台发挥其影响力的。1944年，国际社会急待通过统一的立法来保障航空安全。这需要一个管理国际航空的组织，其不仅享有制定国际航空安全规则的准立法权，同时也有权强制让成员国通过国内法来执行这些规则。然而，除了主要成员国和国际组织所做的努力，这一目标推进得十分缓慢。因此，把航空安全作为一个典型课题，不仅可以研究国家遵守国际义务的意愿和能力，还可探索激励或强制履行国际义务的方式。这一研究之所以重要，还有一个更加现实的原因，即安全（safety）和保安（security）密切相关。对二者进行规定，除了可以避免人身损害和财产损失，最重要的是可以防止人们失去生命。不过，二者也存在区别。安全的规定用来预防意外伤害，而保安的规定则用来预防故意伤害。正如普通法中过错责任（fault-based negligence）和故意侵权（intentional torts）的区别：后者比前者的过错更大，且会面临更加严格的惩罚。2001年9月11日的悲剧后，保安成为国际航空界最为关心的目标。可实际上，乘客死于航空安全的概率比死于空中恐怖袭击的概率高出10倍。因此，研究航空安全在实践中的重要性，其意义远大于充满感情色彩的航空保安研究。在商业航空中，安全的优先级一定是最高的。统计数据表明，国际航空的安全性近年来显著提升。究其原因，一方面归功于日益进步的技术，另一方面也得益于不断完善的法律。本文关注的是后一个问题。 Law without compliance and enforcement is like poetry – it is pleasing to the ear, but has little to do with the practical world in which we live. The study of efforts to achieve uniformity in international norms and compliance with international legal obligations reveals mixed success, even in areas where there is widespread consensus for the need to have international harmony. Given the inherent sovereignty of states, the heterogeneous levels of economic ability, and the diversity of political priorities, securing compliance with international obligations is rarely an effortless task. This article addresses legal norms governing international aviation safety, as well as both unilateral and multilateral efforts to achieve state compliance with those international legal obligations. Commercial international aviation provides a useful case study of how the world community seeks to achieve mutual self-interest by securing global harmony in law. The interplay between conventional international law, quasi-legal standards promulgated by international organizations, and national laws, regulations, and procedures offers insights as to how complex international enterprises, such as commercial aviation, play on the world stage. In 1944, the world community acknowledged the need to achieve safety in international aviation through uniformity in law by establishing an organization to govern international aviation, conferring upon it quasi-legislative power to prescribe standards governing international aviation safety, and obliging member states to implement these standards through their domestic laws. Despite the efforts of major aviation nations and international organizations, those goals are only sluggishly being achieved. Thus, aviation safety can serve as a case study to inquire into the ability and willingness, on the one hand, or inability and unwillingness, on the other, of states to conform to their international obligations and the means by which they can be encouraged, or coerced, to comply. This inquiry is important for another less theoretical and more practica","PeriodicalId":512508,"journal":{"name":"China Law Journal","volume":"8 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141385934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
随着大数据时代的降临，算法技术的正当性问题引发人们关注。区别于算法正义和数据正义，认知正义以认知主体为视角并具有法律意义，要求认知主体的认知水平与认知客体的可信度相匹配。实践中存在对大数据挖掘所获证据的证明力进行天然推定，证明标准难以对法官心证形成控制的现状。这是由于大数据挖掘基于相关关系的思维冲击了人们的认知惯性，将解释权交给了算法，降低了认知水平，算法黑箱的不透明性和难以检验性导致认知客体本不应当赋予过高的可信度，算法歧视导致难以对二者匹配的过程进行矫正。需要将内心确信符合信念标准、偏见性算法信息应仅发挥补强性作用、将大数据挖掘所获信息在辩护人阅卷中进行披露、破除相互印证的因果逻辑桎梏，从而回归于认知正义，走向法治而非“算法治”。 Abstract: With the emergence of the big data era, questions about the legitimacy of algorithmic technologies have arisen. Distinguished from algorithmic justice and data justice, cognitive justice takes the perspective of the cognitive subject and has legal significance, requiring the cognitive level of the cognitive subject to match the credibility of the cognitive object. In practice, there is a natural presumption of the probative power of evidence obtained by big data mining, and the standard of proof is difficult to control the judge’s mental evidence. This is due to the big data mining based on the correlation of thinking impacts the cognitive inertia of people, the interpretation of the right to the algorithm, reducing the level of cognition, the opacity of the black box of the algorithm and difficult to test leads to the cognitive object should not have been given too much credibility, the algorithmic discrimination leads to the difficulty of the process of correcting the matching of the two. There is a need to return to cognitive justice, towards the rule of law rather than the “rule of law”, by bringing inner certainty in line with the standard of conviction, biased algorithmic information should play only a reinforcing role, disclosure of the information obtained from big data mining in the reading of the defense case file and breaking the shackles of the causal logic of mutual corroboration.
{"title":"大数据挖掘行为的认知正义问题研究","authors":"Leiyin Wang","doi":"10.55574/aysi1012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55574/aysi1012","url":null,"abstract":"随着大数据时代的降临，算法技术的正当性问题引发人们关注。区别于算法正义和数据正义，认知正义以认知主体为视角并具有法律意义，要求认知主体的认知水平与认知客体的可信度相匹配。实践中存在对大数据挖掘所获证据的证明力进行天然推定，证明标准难以对法官心证形成控制的现状。这是由于大数据挖掘基于相关关系的思维冲击了人们的认知惯性，将解释权交给了算法，降低了认知水平，算法黑箱的不透明性和难以检验性导致认知客体本不应当赋予过高的可信度，算法歧视导致难以对二者匹配的过程进行矫正。需要将内心确信符合信念标准、偏见性算法信息应仅发挥补强性作用、将大数据挖掘所获信息在辩护人阅卷中进行披露、破除相互印证的因果逻辑桎梏，从而回归于认知正义，走向法治而非“算法治”。 Abstract: With the emergence of the big data era, questions about the legitimacy of algorithmic technologies have arisen. Distinguished from algorithmic justice and data justice, cognitive justice takes the perspective of the cognitive subject and has legal significance, requiring the cognitive level of the cognitive subject to match the credibility of the cognitive object. In practice, there is a natural presumption of the probative power of evidence obtained by big data mining, and the standard of proof is difficult to control the judge’s mental evidence. This is due to the big data mining based on the correlation of thinking impacts the cognitive inertia of people, the interpretation of the right to the algorithm, reducing the level of cognition, the opacity of the black box of the algorithm and difficult to test leads to the cognitive object should not have been given too much credibility, the algorithmic discrimination leads to the difficulty of the process of correcting the matching of the two. There is a need to return to cognitive justice, towards the rule of law rather than the “rule of law”, by bringing inner certainty in line with the standard of conviction, biased algorithmic information should play only a reinforcing role, disclosure of the information obtained from big data mining in the reading of the defense case file and breaking the shackles of the causal logic of mutual corroboration.","PeriodicalId":512508,"journal":{"name":"China Law Journal","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141386137","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
本文采用制度主义研究路径，分析了国际法院在国际裁判和执行人权方面的作用，以及它在阐释和发展基本人权规则和原则方面的贡献。国际法院是联合国主要机关之一，也是其主要的司法机关，在国际裁判机制中享有重中之重的特殊地位。国际法院对阐释和发展人权法的贡献可以从三个角度来看：第一，在程序角度，它进一步推动了人权的可诉性。第二，在实体角度，它不仅分析了非殖民化背景下的民族自决权问题和一些公约项下的人权保护范围，还处理了人权公约义务的领土范围问题、国家责任归属问题以及国际不法行为的赔偿问题，为国家、国际组织及其机构、其他法律实体甚至个人制定了行为标准。第三，在制度角度，它确保了联合国人权问题报告员的独立性和不可侵犯性，对联合国大会和安全理事会在维护国际和平与安全方面的职能作出建设性的阐释，并对其遵守国际人权义务的情况进行监督。然而，一些案件体现出国际法院在审理人权案件时存在的管辖权漏洞和其他障碍，它对国际法中某些有争议的问题持谨慎立场。这意味着国际法院有时在实施人权保护方面可能施加的影响有限。 This article uses an institutional approach when discussing the role of the ICJ within the context of international adjudication and enforcement of human rights, as well as its contribution to the interpretation and development of key human rights rules and principles. As one of the main UN organs and its principal judicial organ, the ICJ enjoys a somewhat special position as first among equals. The Court’s contribution to the interpretation and development of human rights can be seen from three aspects. Firstly, from the procedural aspect, the Court furthered the justiciability of human rights. Secondly, from the substantial aspect, the Court has dealt not only with the right to self-determination within the decolonisation context and the scope of human rights protection under the convention, but also with the territorial scope of human rights treaties’ obligations, aspects of attribution of State responsibility and issues concerning reparations for internationally wrongful acts, which lays down standards of conduct for States, international organisations and their organs, other legal entities and even individuals. Thirdly, from the institutional aspect, the ICJ ensures the independence and inviolability of UN human rights rapporteurs, the constructive interpretation of the functions of the General Assembly and the Security Council in matters of international peace and security and their monitoring of compliance with international human rights obligations. However, several cases have highlighted the jurisdictional gaps and other obstacles to litigating human rights cases before the Court. These cases have also highlighted the Court’s guarded position on certain controversial issues under international law. It shows that the limitations to the Court’s potential impact on the enforcement of fundamental human rights.
{"title":"国际法院对国际人权法的阐释与发展","authors":"Gentian Zyberi","doi":"10.55574/ofxx6901","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55574/ofxx6901","url":null,"abstract":"本文采用制度主义研究路径，分析了国际法院在国际裁判和执行人权方面的作用，以及它在阐释和发展基本人权规则和原则方面的贡献。国际法院是联合国主要机关之一，也是其主要的司法机关，在国际裁判机制中享有重中之重的特殊地位。国际法院对阐释和发展人权法的贡献可以从三个角度来看：第一，在程序角度，它进一步推动了人权的可诉性。第二，在实体角度，它不仅分析了非殖民化背景下的民族自决权问题和一些公约项下的人权保护范围，还处理了人权公约义务的领土范围问题、国家责任归属问题以及国际不法行为的赔偿问题，为国家、国际组织及其机构、其他法律实体甚至个人制定了行为标准。第三，在制度角度，它确保了联合国人权问题报告员的独立性和不可侵犯性，对联合国大会和安全理事会在维护国际和平与安全方面的职能作出建设性的阐释，并对其遵守国际人权义务的情况进行监督。然而，一些案件体现出国际法院在审理人权案件时存在的管辖权漏洞和其他障碍，它对国际法中某些有争议的问题持谨慎立场。这意味着国际法院有时在实施人权保护方面可能施加的影响有限。 This article uses an institutional approach when discussing the role of the ICJ within the context of international adjudication and enforcement of human rights, as well as its contribution to the interpretation and development of key human rights rules and principles. As one of the main UN organs and its principal judicial organ, the ICJ enjoys a somewhat special position as first among equals. The Court’s contribution to the interpretation and development of human rights can be seen from three aspects. Firstly, from the procedural aspect, the Court furthered the justiciability of human rights. Secondly, from the substantial aspect, the Court has dealt not only with the right to self-determination within the decolonisation context and the scope of human rights protection under the convention, but also with the territorial scope of human rights treaties’ obligations, aspects of attribution of State responsibility and issues concerning reparations for internationally wrongful acts, which lays down standards of conduct for States, international organisations and their organs, other legal entities and even individuals. Thirdly, from the institutional aspect, the ICJ ensures the independence and inviolability of UN human rights rapporteurs, the constructive interpretation of the functions of the General Assembly and the Security Council in matters of international peace and security and their monitoring of compliance with international human rights obligations. However, several cases have highlighted the jurisdictional gaps and other obstacles to litigating human rights cases before the Court. These cases have also highlighted the Court’s guarded position on certain controversial issues under international law. It shows that the limitations to the Court’s potential impact on the enforcement of fundamental human rights.","PeriodicalId":512508,"journal":{"name":"China Law Journal","volume":"16 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141382912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
在医疗人工智能引起的法律议题中，运用医疗人工智能的说明义务亟须规范解释。医疗人工智能无法被当前的说明义务体系所涵摄，原因在于医疗器械不是知情同意制度所调整的对象，但这无法回应人工智能所带来的新型科技风险。说明义务的开放框架为披露医疗人工智的使用创造了弹性空间，技术水平、法律规范与医疗实践等多元基础进一步证立此项披露告知的必要性和重要性。医疗人工智能的说明义务在现阶段应采取理性患者与具体患者之混合标准、排除理性医生标准，在程度上应以简洁为要，照顾社会公众对医疗人工智能的认知水平。医疗人工智能说明义务的内容由“标准的风险与利益披露”所衍生，结合医疗决策主导权归属问题的探讨，应包括医疗人工智能的参与程度、固有风险、期待利益及替代措施四项基本信息。 In the legal issues caused by medical artificial intelligence, the duty of explanation of using medical artificial intelligence urgently needs to be normatively interpreted. Medical artificial intelligence cannot be covered by the current system of explanation duties, as medical devices are not the subject of the informed consent system. However, this cannot respond to the new technological risks brought by artificial intelligence. The open framework of the explanation duties creates flexible space for disclosing the use of medical artificial intelligence, and the diverse foundations of technological level, legal norms, and medical practice further establish the necessity and importance of this disclosure. The duty to explain medical artificial intelligence at the current stage should adopt a mixed standard of the reasonable patient standard and the subjective patient standard, excluding the reasonable doctor standard, and should be concise in terms of degree, taking into account the public’s awareness level of medical artificial intelligence. The content of the duty to explain medical artificial intelligence is derived from the “standard risk-benefit-disclosure” and should include four basic pieces of information: the level of involvement of artificial intelligence in medical decision-making, inherent risks, expected benefits, and alternative measures, combined with the exploration of the issue of medical decision-making authority.
{"title":"论运用医疗人工智能的说明义务","authors":"Yujie Yang","doi":"10.55574/vzox5261","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55574/vzox5261","url":null,"abstract":"在医疗人工智能引起的法律议题中，运用医疗人工智能的说明义务亟须规范解释。医疗人工智能无法被当前的说明义务体系所涵摄，原因在于医疗器械不是知情同意制度所调整的对象，但这无法回应人工智能所带来的新型科技风险。说明义务的开放框架为披露医疗人工智的使用创造了弹性空间，技术水平、法律规范与医疗实践等多元基础进一步证立此项披露告知的必要性和重要性。医疗人工智能的说明义务在现阶段应采取理性患者与具体患者之混合标准、排除理性医生标准，在程度上应以简洁为要，照顾社会公众对医疗人工智能的认知水平。医疗人工智能说明义务的内容由“标准的风险与利益披露”所衍生，结合医疗决策主导权归属问题的探讨，应包括医疗人工智能的参与程度、固有风险、期待利益及替代措施四项基本信息。 In the legal issues caused by medical artificial intelligence, the duty of explanation of using medical artificial intelligence urgently needs to be normatively interpreted. Medical artificial intelligence cannot be covered by the current system of explanation duties, as medical devices are not the subject of the informed consent system. However, this cannot respond to the new technological risks brought by artificial intelligence. The open framework of the explanation duties creates flexible space for disclosing the use of medical artificial intelligence, and the diverse foundations of technological level, legal norms, and medical practice further establish the necessity and importance of this disclosure. The duty to explain medical artificial intelligence at the current stage should adopt a mixed standard of the reasonable patient standard and the subjective patient standard, excluding the reasonable doctor standard, and should be concise in terms of degree, taking into account the public’s awareness level of medical artificial intelligence. The content of the duty to explain medical artificial intelligence is derived from the “standard risk-benefit-disclosure” and should include four basic pieces of information: the level of involvement of artificial intelligence in medical decision-making, inherent risks, expected benefits, and alternative measures, combined with the exploration of the issue of medical decision-making authority.","PeriodicalId":512508,"journal":{"name":"China Law Journal","volume":"41 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141383266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
摘要：随着大数据时代的降临，算法技术的正当性问题引发人们关注。区别于算法正义和数据正义，认知正义以认知主体为视角并具有法律意义，要求认知主体的认知水平与认知客体的可信度相匹配。实践中存在对大数据挖掘所获证据的证明力进行天然推定，证明标准难以对法官心证形成控制的现状。这是由于大数据挖掘基于相关关系的思维冲击了人们的认知惯性，将解释权交给了算法，降低了认知水平，算法黑箱的不透明性和难以检验性导致认知客体本不应当赋予过高的可信度，算法歧视导致难以对二者匹配的过程进行矫正。需要将内心确信符合信念标准、偏见性算法信息应仅发挥补强性作用、将大数据挖掘所获信息在辩护人阅卷中进行披露、破除相互印证的因果逻辑桎梏，从而回归于认知正义，走向法治而非“算法治”。 Abstract: With the emergence of the big data era, questions about the legitimacy of algorithmic technologies have arisen. Distinguished from algorithmic justice and data justice, cognitive justice takes the perspective of the cognitive subject and has legal significance, requiring the cognitive level of the cognitive subject to match the credibility of the cognitive object. In practice, there is a natural presumption of the probative power of evidence obtained by big data mining, and the standard of proof is difficult to control the judge’s mental evidence. This is due to the big data mining based on the correlation of thinking impacts the cognitive inertia of people, the interpretation of the right to the algorithm, reducing the level of cognition, the opacity of the black box of the algorithm and difficult to test leads to the cognitive object should not have been given too much credibility, the algorithmic discrimination leads to the difficulty of the process of correcting the matching of the two. There is a need to return to cognitive justice, towards the rule of law rather than the “rule of law”, by bringing inner certainty in line with the standard of conviction, biased algorithmic information should play only a reinforcing role, disclosure of the information obtained from big data mining in the reading of the defense case file and breaking the shackles of the causal logic of mutual corroboration.
{"title":"元宇宙背景下个人生物信息的法理辨析及保护路径","authors":"Shilun Zhou","doi":"10.55574/prty7398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55574/prty7398","url":null,"abstract":"摘要：随着大数据时代的降临，算法技术的正当性问题引发人们关注。区别于算法正义和数据正义，认知正义以认知主体为视角并具有法律意义，要求认知主体的认知水平与认知客体的可信度相匹配。实践中存在对大数据挖掘所获证据的证明力进行天然推定，证明标准难以对法官心证形成控制的现状。这是由于大数据挖掘基于相关关系的思维冲击了人们的认知惯性，将解释权交给了算法，降低了认知水平，算法黑箱的不透明性和难以检验性导致认知客体本不应当赋予过高的可信度，算法歧视导致难以对二者匹配的过程进行矫正。需要将内心确信符合信念标准、偏见性算法信息应仅发挥补强性作用、将大数据挖掘所获信息在辩护人阅卷中进行披露、破除相互印证的因果逻辑桎梏，从而回归于认知正义，走向法治而非“算法治”。 Abstract: With the emergence of the big data era, questions about the legitimacy of algorithmic technologies have arisen. Distinguished from algorithmic justice and data justice, cognitive justice takes the perspective of the cognitive subject and has legal significance, requiring the cognitive level of the cognitive subject to match the credibility of the cognitive object. In practice, there is a natural presumption of the probative power of evidence obtained by big data mining, and the standard of proof is difficult to control the judge’s mental evidence. This is due to the big data mining based on the correlation of thinking impacts the cognitive inertia of people, the interpretation of the right to the algorithm, reducing the level of cognition, the opacity of the black box of the algorithm and difficult to test leads to the cognitive object should not have been given too much credibility, the algorithmic discrimination leads to the difficulty of the process of correcting the matching of the two. There is a need to return to cognitive justice, towards the rule of law rather than the “rule of law”, by bringing inner certainty in line with the standard of conviction, biased algorithmic information should play only a reinforcing role, disclosure of the information obtained from big data mining in the reading of the defense case file and breaking the shackles of the causal logic of mutual corroboration.","PeriodicalId":512508,"journal":{"name":"China Law Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141382213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
元宇宙是借助数字技术打造的沉浸式全息虚拟社会，其实现需要依靠增强现实（AR）、虚拟现实（VR）等沉浸式技术设备获得用户的动态，在此过程中需要大量收集用户的身体特征数据、手势动作、眼球位置信息等广义的“个人生物信息”。当前，我国《个人信息保护法》对于广义上的“个人生物信息”并无明确定义，仅将“个人生物识别信息”列举为“特殊个人敏感信息”的七种情形之一。结合个人生物信息在元宇宙中的技术中立、平台管理、跨国利用、去中心化追责风险，应拓宽“个人生物识别信息”的法律概念，将“可识别”纳入其概念范畴内，以回应个人生物信息的广义内涵。此外，还需要建立去中心化身份认证系统，完善 “My Data” 数据模式，并强化代码与法律的互补，以构建更加全面和有效的个人生物信息保护机制，在技术发展的同时确保个人隐私不受侵害，构建安全、公正、有序的元宇宙环境。 Metaverse is an immersive holographic virtual society created with the help of digital technology, the realisation of which needs to rely on immersive technological devices such as Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) to obtain the dynamics of the user, and in the process needs to collect a large number of user’s physical characteristics data, gestures, eye position information and other broadly-defined “personal bio-information”. Currently, China’s Personal Information Protection Law does not have a clear definition of “personal biological information” in the broad sense, and only lists “personal biometric information” as one of the seven types of “special personal sensitive information”. It only lists “personal biometric information” as one of the seven cases of “special personal sensitive information”. Taking into account the risks of technological neutrality, platform management, transnational use and decentralisation of personal biometric information in the meta-universe, the legal concept of “personal biometric information” should be broadened to include “identifiable” in its conceptual scope, in order to respond to the broad connotation of personal biometric information. The legal concept of “personal biometric information” should be broadened to include “identifiable” in order to respond to the broader meaning of personal biometric information. In addition, it is also necessary to establish a decentralised authentication system, improve the “My Data” data model, and strengthen the complementarity between code and law, in order to build a more comprehensive and effective protection mechanism for personal biometric information, to ensure that personal privacy is not infringed upon while the technology develops, and to build a safe, just and orderly meta-universe environment.
{"title":"元宇宙背景下个人生物信息的法理辨析及保护路径","authors":"Ruwen* Pei","doi":"10.55574/yyle6178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55574/yyle6178","url":null,"abstract":"元宇宙是借助数字技术打造的沉浸式全息虚拟社会，其实现需要依靠增强现实（AR）、虚拟现实（VR）等沉浸式技术设备获得用户的动态，在此过程中需要大量收集用户的身体特征数据、手势动作、眼球位置信息等广义的“个人生物信息”。当前，我国《个人信息保护法》对于广义上的“个人生物信息”并无明确定义，仅将“个人生物识别信息”列举为“特殊个人敏感信息”的七种情形之一。结合个人生物信息在元宇宙中的技术中立、平台管理、跨国利用、去中心化追责风险，应拓宽“个人生物识别信息”的法律概念，将“可识别”纳入其概念范畴内，以回应个人生物信息的广义内涵。此外，还需要建立去中心化身份认证系统，完善 “My Data” 数据模式，并强化代码与法律的互补，以构建更加全面和有效的个人生物信息保护机制，在技术发展的同时确保个人隐私不受侵害，构建安全、公正、有序的元宇宙环境。 Metaverse is an immersive holographic virtual society created with the help of digital technology, the realisation of which needs to rely on immersive technological devices such as Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) to obtain the dynamics of the user, and in the process needs to collect a large number of user’s physical characteristics data, gestures, eye position information and other broadly-defined “personal bio-information”. Currently, China’s Personal Information Protection Law does not have a clear definition of “personal biological information” in the broad sense, and only lists “personal biometric information” as one of the seven types of “special personal sensitive information”. It only lists “personal biometric information” as one of the seven cases of “special personal sensitive information”. Taking into account the risks of technological neutrality, platform management, transnational use and decentralisation of personal biometric information in the meta-universe, the legal concept of “personal biometric information” should be broadened to include “identifiable” in its conceptual scope, in order to respond to the broad connotation of personal biometric information. The legal concept of “personal biometric information” should be broadened to include “identifiable” in order to respond to the broader meaning of personal biometric information. In addition, it is also necessary to establish a decentralised authentication system, improve the “My Data” data model, and strengthen the complementarity between code and law, in order to build a more comprehensive and effective protection mechanism for personal biometric information, to ensure that personal privacy is not infringed upon while the technology develops, and to build a safe, just and orderly meta-universe environment.","PeriodicalId":512508,"journal":{"name":"China Law Journal","volume":"44 35","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141384425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：