The Intervention Path of Fundamental Rights under the Scope of International Private Law

In recent years, international private law scholars have argued for the radiating effect of fundamental rights on international private law by introducing constitutional theory. However,there remains a lack of systematic research on how fundamental rights should be integrated into judicial practices concerning foreign-related civil and commercial cases. Throughout the development of international private law, public policy has served as a historical carrier of substantive values for judicial entities and has consistently played a crucial role in value review. In cases of international private law where conflicts arise with the values of fundamental rights, public policy indirectly excludes the legal choice outcomes to safeguard the human rights values inherent in fundamental rights from infringement.However, due to limitations imposed by the degree of connection and relative conditions, traditional paths of public policy have certain constraints and cannot provide comprehensive protection for fundamental rights. Therefore, there is a need for judges to shift their logical paradigms, transcend bilateral choice-of-law models, and introduce a direct intervention path for fundamental rights. This direct intervention path utilizes the logical analysis framework of the protection scope,intervention, and justification of fundamental rights. It can effectively balance conflicting legal interests and maximize the protection of the fundamental rights of the parties involved.

The“Erga Omnes”of the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights and the“Complementary Protection”of Refugees Not Prescribed by the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and its Protocol in 1967 set Four Essentials to limit the definition of "refugee". The concept of complementary protection emerged in academia and practice for those who, though they do not have the essentials,are in need of protection. Complementary protection is considered not only a moral obligation, but also a legal obligation. Although as the result of developing the principle of "non-refoulement" in international law, "complementary protection" should be limited when economic and social rights are concerned. The development of the non-refoulement principle and the emergence of "complementary protection" are based on the Erga Omnes of human rights. The International Court of Justice has restricted the emergence and evolvement of obligations Erga Omnes within the scope of obligations concerning fundamental and non-derogable human rights, and therefore,the application of "complementary protection" in protecting economic and social rights has been limited. Only when the unbalance of economic and social rights has been serious enough to impact other fundamental human rights will the obligation of "complementary protection" ensue.

Unenumerated Rights Clauses and the System of Restriction on Fundamental Rights——Another Construction Plan for Article 51 of the Constitution of PRC

According to constitutional jurisprudence in China,Article 51 of the Constitution is an unenumerated restrictive clause.Such theoretical construction fails to justify the differentiated restrictions established in the Constitution and makes it difficult to explain the constitutional status of human dignity. Article 51 implies the possibility of other theoretical constructions. It is not an unenumerated restriction clause but an unenumerated rights clause. It aims to provide guarantees for general freedom of action not enumerated in the Constitution rather than restricting fundamental rights. The actual benefit of this kind of theoretical construction lies in that it can establish the basis of the constitutional text for general freedom of action and promote the people’s correct understanding of the model of restriction on fundamental rights established by the Constitution of PRC.

Research on the Constitutional,Historical and Practical Logic of the Chinese Path of Human Rights Development——From the Perspective of the Inclusion of Human Rights Clause in the Constitution

The inclusion of the human rights clause in the Chi-nese Constitution is a concern and expression of the spirit of the Con-stitution,which has laid the institutional regulations of the fundamen-tal law for the development of human rights in China,provided the principles and value norms of the highest level of effectiveness for the legal protection of human rights,and built a profound constitutional basis for the formation and improvement of the Chinese path of human rights development.The human rights clause is not only a summariza-tion and affirmation of the historical practice of Chinese human rights development under the leadership of the Communist Party of China,but also a new starting point for the development of human rights in China under the leadership of the Communist Party of China.It marks that the development of human rights in China has entered a new era.The Party and the state have finally embarked on a path of human rights development with Chinese characteristics by formulating and implementing the Human Rights Action Plan of China,eliminating ab-solute poverty through the national poverty alleviation campaign,and promoting human rights protection through the rule of law.

The Socialist Rule of Law with Chinese Characteristics and Human Rights Protection

Law is the fundamental method of governance and the rule of law symbolizes modern civilization. The socialist rule of law is the rule of law rooted in the Chinese tradition, and designed and led by the Communist Party of China(CPC). It is not only a tool for government, but also a driver of social progress. Meanwhile, the Chinese human rights system is also designed by the CPC. Both concepts—the socialist rule of law and the human rights system——are different from the West in terms of theory, path and systems. Human rights are the fundamental values of and the ultimate goal pursued by the rule of law; and the rule of law is the recognition of and guarantee for human rights. Efforts must be made to advance legislative, administrative and judicial protection of human rights.

公序良俗在情人遗赠纠纷中的适用——基于私法与基本权利冲突理论的二元视角

遗赠是否违背公序良俗应以遗赠本身为审查对象,而不能以遗赠以外之事实为断。同时,情人遗赠行为是否违背公序良俗,尤应考察当事人一方遗赠的动机是否是将性奉献与经济上的对待给付联结起来,抑或是存在其他更值得尊重的动机。但在私法视角下,情人遗赠的效力,总是呈现出完全有效或完全无效的形态。而在基本权利冲突与权衡的视角下,各基本权利相互较量各自在具体个案中的分量,此种权衡和较量之结果体现在法律行为效力上,即既非完全有效亦非完全无效,而是在两者间存在多种可能性,因而更能适应个案中的具体情况,也更具灵活性。

On the Principle of Consistency of Rights and Obligations in the Constitution of PRC

“The Fundamental Rights and obligations of Citizens”, the title of Chapter II of the current Constitution of PRC, and the stipulation that citizens must fulfill certain obligations while enjoying rights have triggered many debates. Considering the historical origin, constitutional philosophy, and the text and structure of the Constitution, the special provisions of the current Constitution are influenced by the principle of consistency of rights and obligations. The principle of consistency of rights and obligations in the Constitution is of complex connotation. Therefore, although the principle of consistency of rights and obligations effectively connects the public and private spheres, it ignores the diversity and differences of the interests and elements contained in the Constitution, the asymmetry of the normative status of fundamental rights and fundamental obligations,and the right of citizens to self-determination of personal interests.The principle of consistency of rights and obligations should be purposefully narrowed and concretized: In the context of public-private integration and risk society prevention, the principle of consistency of rights and obligations can be used as a supplement to the functional system of the Constitution;in the field of fundamental political obligations, the principle of consistency of rights and obligations should be in line with the requirements of the state to respect and protect human rights;in the field of fundamental social obligations, the exercise of fundamental rights by individuals is protected by the Constitution as long as they comply with the law and do not infringe upon the interests of the social community. The principle of the consistency of rights and obligations is only used as the negative constituents of the determination of rights and the basis for the effect against a third party of fundamental rights.

Basic Rights Intervention in the Obtainment of Digital Data as Evidence in Criminal Case——An Analysis Based on Six Typical Cases

Electronic data is the most frequently used evidence in the internet and information era.Electronic data has been applied extensively and can be classified into many categories,which determine that electronic data contains all kinds off undamental rights.To clearly understand the fundamental rights contained in electronic data is an important precondition for respecting and protecting human rights in electronic data evidence obtainment.Property-type electronic data contain property rights.Traditional investigation measures such as seizure and freezing the property cannot be taken to obtain valid evidence.To directly turn the digital currency into cash and then seize the cash,will result in insufficient property rights protection,and may violate other fundamental rights of criminal suspects.The expansion of the object of the right to privacy and the change of the carrier on which the expansion depends in privacytype electronic data,determine that the obtainment of the privacytype electronic data evidence may result in intangible intervention and secondary intervention in the right to privacy.Communicationtype electronic data contains freedom of communication and the right to communication secrecy.Investigative organs can collect this kind of electronic data through search,acquisition,remote investigation and examination,and other means.However,according to the existing institution design,the above-mentioned means may result in insufficient protection of freedom of communication.Expressiontype electronic data contains freedom of expression.If investigative organs collect this kind of data,they may intervene in freedom of the press though they do not intervene in narrowly defined freedom of expression.The basic principles that should be followed in the electronic data evidence obtainment which intervenes in fundamental rights include the doctrine of legal reservation,the writ system,the principle ofp roportionality,and illegal evidence exclusion.

德国刑事诉讼中的基本权保障

《刑事诉讼法》修改增加的“尊重和保障人权”条款是我国刑事诉讼立法上的巨大进步,但是,我国刑事司法人权保障在制度和实践中仍有提升空间。观诸域外法制,德国法上的刑事司法人权保障关联到宪法上的基本权保障,将刑事诉讼中的基本权干预上升到宪法审查高度,联邦宪法法院遵循法治国原则为强制措施、侦查干预、审前羁押等刑事诉讼行为设置严格的宪法上的程序保护机制,不失为一种完善我国刑事司法人权保障可借鉴的制度模式。在德国刑事诉讼制度中,以惩罚犯罪名义实施的刑事诉讼行为被认定为基本权干预行为时,均需获得宪法上的正当化;刑事侦查中的基本权保障根据法官保留原则进行实质性审查,对全部侦查行为设定分级审查程序机制,并在刑事个案办理中对查明犯罪真相设定具体的审查限制;刑事司法的基本权保障所覆盖的权利主体范围在宪法法院判例中得到不断扩展,明确保障被追诉人、被害人、证人、辩护人等刑事诉讼主体及其基本权利;与合宪性意义上的刑事诉讼原则共生的一系列程序权利,构成基本权保障较为完整的程序保护机制。

数字时代数据接入权的法律保障研究

数字浪潮席卷后的沙滩留下了许多名为“数字权利”的贝壳,引起学界热烈讨论,然而目前尚缺乏像数据接入权一样最为基础的权利概念。因此从新兴权利这一视角出发,宪法人权条款、人格尊严条款和概括限制条款为该权利的证立提供了宪法规范依据。数据接入权相当于公民在数字空间的生命,是个人通过数据与互联网连接形成的参与数字活动的资格,是数字时代的基本人权。该权利的实现有赖于数字法律制度的构建,充分发挥国家、平台和用户各个主体参与数字治理的能动性,明晰行政部门职能定位,建立完备的国家监管机制。数据的接入保护宜以分类分级规则为指导,尊重个人隐私权、知情权;同时,侵权责任遵循过错推定责任原则,并以无过错责任为补充,关注预防性责任应对潜在风险,引入公益诉讼机制,从而为公民的数据接入保护拉起最后一道防线。

环境健康风险法律规制的限度及其调适

基于问题导向,环境健康风险法律规制呈现为环境联系健康的立法观与系统性的风险规制法制。然而,事实因应导向的环境健康风险法律规制也不可避免地存在过度干预权利、法律控制乏力与解释空间过大的风险,需要在既有理路框架下,由宪法从立法选择与法律实施层面对其进行结构性调适。在立法选择中,有必要重塑环境健康风险预防义务与基本权利并重的立法观,明确环境健康风险系统规制中事权协同的合宪性标准,搭建合理表达预防积极化与比例选择规制措施的规范结构;在法律实施中,需以基本权利作为解释标准,强化环境行政裁量与司法裁判的合宪性控制,避免给私主体增加不必要的损害或负担。

公民基本权益的概念证成——以“强制亲子鉴定”备案审查案例为中心

2021年,全国人民代表大会常务委员会法制工作委员会在备案审查工作报告中披露的“强制亲子鉴定”案的审查结论中认为,亲子关系涉及公民人格尊严、身份、隐私和家庭关系和谐稳定,属于公民基本权益,受宪法法律保护。该审查结论首次提出“公民基本权益”的概念,这既是对宪法上所规定的权利和利益的重大发展,也提出了如何认识基本权益的问题。通过分析发现,人格尊严、家庭关系和谐稳定属于我国宪法明确列举的基本权利,身份、隐私、亲子关系虽然未被我国宪法所列举,但仍然受宪法上人格尊严、家庭关系的保护。因此,公民基本权益是公民基本权利和基本利益的总称,宪法上明确列举的权利属于基本权利,而宪法上虽未列举但受宪法基本权利保护的属于基本利益。

劳动形态多样化对劳动法的冲击与劳动法的范式革新

随着科技进步和生产方式变革,劳动世界从标准就业为主趋向劳动形态多样化的格局。标准就业是传统劳动法保护的起点,主要指具有从属性和持续性特征的全日制劳动合同用工。在劳动形态多样化趋势下,具有不稳定性、弱从属性和去中心化的非标准就业如雨后春笋般冒出,对传统劳动法形成了强力冲击,这一冲击表现为劳动法的适用困局、劳动者劳动权益受损及用工关系调整机制滞后等。为应对劳动形态多样化的挑战,劳动法亟须进行范式革新,这需要劳动法在方法论上综合运用逻辑演绎和实用主义的思维工具,在用工关系治理机制上强化劳动立法和劳动司法的协作,并注重国家干预和社会协商的配合,在治理目标上同步推进基本劳动权益保护和生产效率解放。

《民法典》实施后强制婚检的合宪性争议

《民法典》的实施导致强制婚检合宪性问题浮出水面,也改变了其中争议的宪法评价。一方面,强制婚检规定作为一项保护性立法的定性并未改变。尽管强制婚检规定在《民法典》实施前后的立法目的有所区别,不再立足婚姻关系,而是回归到母婴健康保护,但由于婚姻基本权利条款已将家庭及其成员的国家保护纳入其中,所以强制婚检规定依然是对婚姻基本权利的保护而非干预,原则上可以被推定为合宪。但另一方面,随着《民法典》实施带来的婚姻自由观的更新,婚姻受国家保护的限度有了新的内涵,继续从国家管制角度推行强制婚检有违宪之虞。根据民法典精神,从私法角度对婚检的“强制”属性作出解释,统筹协调相关民事法律规则,应是强制婚检制度的改革方向。

数字时代经济权力法律治理的现代转向

数字时代下数据、算法和平台等现象的涌现表征着社会权力的兴起。在以国家和个体二元划分为基础的传统范式中,权力来源限定于国家,维持着“公权力—私权利”对峙的基本格局。但是,现代社会内部冲突和分化的结果在事实层面已经产生了以经济权力为代表的社会权力。经济权力以资本运行和增殖为基础,同时通过组织和技术实现权力的支配和宰制效应。然而,传统法律框架忽视了经济权力治理的现实意义,以及对蕴含于其中的资本和技术予以规制的必要。经济权力的治理应以三元融合的社会结构为基础,具体治理路径需要以规制经济势力为核心的反垄断法来主导建构,同时坚持公法和私法融合的协同规制,最终实现对经济权力结构中技术和资本的共同治理。

制度性保障理论的源流与当代宪法价值

魏玛宪法时期的制度性保障理论以“现状保障”为主,施密特将魏玛宪法中的制度与权利分离,通过保障制度的核心不受侵犯,进而保障公民的基本权。“乡镇自治”“公务员制度”与“财产权制度”均为制度性保障的实例。德国基本法时期的制度性保障成为基本权利客观面向的一个功能,主要通过构建制度、维护制度的核心来保障基本权利不受侵犯。对于我国的宪法学,制度性保障理论应是宪法解释的新理念,将特定宪法条款解释为制度,可以有效发挥部分纲领性条款的实效性,以此可以约束立法乃至司法、行政,也为合宪性审查提供依据。

强化竞争政策基础地位法律建构

从以产业政策为主到强化竞争政策的基础地位,是国家经济治理方式的根本性变革,旨在充分发挥反垄断法对政府干预行为的规制作用,确保其他政策与竞争政策保持一致。以一种干预约束另一种干预,意味着反垄断法实际地位的提升与作用的拓展,必须依赖于宪法的权威;同时又不能逾越宪法的授权,避免将其推至绝对优先的地位,不当削弱其他政府干预。这一命题准确的法学意蕴,在于以竞争为导向的跨部门法的法秩序重整。从基本权利保护到尊重私法自治,再到考虑政府干预的经济合理性,最终着眼于确保经济秩序的整体正确性;在与宪法、民法、行政法的对话中,反垄断法回归到“经济性宪法”的地位,形成对其他公共政策的制约。有效落实这一顶层设计,需要基于反垄断法,又必须超越反垄断法:需要以反垄断法的理念、标准和工具统领整个监管体系的构造;更需要以其他法律弥补反垄断法的局限,共同为维持和强化竞争创造条件。

论宪法中父母对未成年子女的教育权利

在宪法上,父母教育权利属于一项未列举的基本权利。父母教育权利兼具利他性与利己性。父母首先应充分保障未成年人的利益,随着未成年人的不断成长,父母也应当尊重未成年人意愿。同时,父母在教育子女的过程中可以实现其自身利益。父母教育权利主要包括家庭教育开展自由、教育场所选择自由与学校事务参与自由。在家庭教育开展自由中,人格和价值观教育蕴含的父母利益通常多于知识和技能传授,公权力对前者的干预应当格外慎重。随着未成年人年龄和智慧的增长,对父母的教育场所选择自由与学校事务参与自由保护强度逐步减弱,其所蕴含的父母利益亦不断递减,公共利益不断提升。在未成年人教育中,国家既可以行使对父母教育权利的监督权,也可以亲自行使教育权力,二者均应在尊重父母教育权利的前提下行使。

数据保护权是一项权利吗——基于欧盟和美国的考察

数据保护权关注的是与个人数据之使用相关的抽象危险,而这些危险往往会对诸如结社、言论自由等其他基本权利造成侵犯。因此,数据保护权本身不是一项独立的基本权利,而是对其他受到宪法保障的权利和自由的预防性提升,这种看待数据保护的方式也能得到相关司法判例的支持,而且能够更好地解释数据保护与其他权利的关系。认定数据保护并非一项权利,具有重要的现实意义,根据这种理论形成的方法,相较于目前正在德国和欧洲盛行的方法更加具有系统性,这一新视角不仅关注个人数据的收集,还考虑到了整个数据处理系统及其环境,有助于我们更好地理解大西洋两岸在数据保护标准方面的差异。

预防性刑法的正当性及其限度:基于合宪性的检视

以控制风险、维护安全为内生动力的预防性刑法,在刑事立法中主要表现在恐怖主义、经济、网络、药品及环境领域。这些领域的刑事立法存在其正当性根基:外部根基体现在当代社会的安全需求及相关前置规范的不足,内部根基体现于机能主义刑法观的催生及刑法体系的刑事政策化。宪法作为法秩序的规范框架,可为预防性刑法的正当性及其限度提供评价依据。预防性刑法保护安全及秩序的同时,也对公民的自由权利构成限制。然而,这种限制在形式上应遵循立法权限和立法程序,在实质上符合目的正当性、适当性、必要性以及均衡性要求。预防性刑法的合宪性审查难题在于均衡性,如何把握均衡性的限度是厘清预防性刑法界限的关键。立法者应遵循法律保留的差异性处理,确保预防性刑法所配置的刑罚和行为的风险程度相适应。同时,贯通以基本权利为内核的法益保护,从而为预防性刑法划界。