我国《电子商务法》第38条第2款规定,电商平台经营者有安全保障义务,不同于一般场所管理人,电子商务平台涉及虚拟网络空间,安保义务具有特殊性。本文首先论述平台经营者地位特殊性和承担更高安全保障义务的合理性。其次以侵权责任为视角...我国《电子商务法》第38条第2款规定,电商平台经营者有安全保障义务,不同于一般场所管理人,电子商务平台涉及虚拟网络空间,安保义务具有特殊性。本文首先论述平台经营者地位特殊性和承担更高安全保障义务的合理性。其次以侵权责任为视角,在认定平台经营者违反安全保障义务是否侵权责任基础上讨论责任构成,该责任是过错侵权,采用举证责任倒置的方法,因果关系上采用“若有,则无”的判断方法。再次区分38条1款和第2款,第1款调整的是帮助侵权,第2款调整的是分别侵权。最后认定“相应责任”形态为按份责任并阐述其合理性。Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of China’s E-Commerce Law stipulates that e-commerce platform operators have security obligations, and unlike general premises managers, e-commerce platforms are involved in virtual cyberspace, and the security obligations are of a special nature. This paper firstly discusses the special status of platform operators and the reasonableness of assuming higher security obligations. Secondly, from the perspective of tort liability, the platform operator violates the obligation of safety and security is discussed on the basis of the liability composition, the liability is fault infringement, using the method of reversing the burden of proof, causality using the “if there is, then there is no” judgment method. Again, a distinction is made between Article 38, Paragraphs 1 and 2, with Paragraph 1 regulating the tort of contribution and Paragraph 2 regulating the tort of separation. Finally, the form of “corresponding responsibility” is recognized and justified as contributory responsibility.展开更多
我国《电子商务法》第38条第2款确立了电商平台经营者特有的安全保障义务,要求电商平台经营者尽最大努力保护消费者的生命健康权,减少对消费者的损害。《电子商务法》第38条第一款和第二款中要求违反义务的电商平台承担“连带责任”和...我国《电子商务法》第38条第2款确立了电商平台经营者特有的安全保障义务,要求电商平台经营者尽最大努力保护消费者的生命健康权,减少对消费者的损害。《电子商务法》第38条第一款和第二款中要求违反义务的电商平台承担“连带责任”和“相应责任”,在解释适用上存在较大的具体化空间。对于违反安全保障义务及审核义务所适用的责任形态,应当结合其他法律规定进行体系性的解释,不能过分苛求电商平台承担过重的责任,这将不利于电子商务的繁荣发展,应当运用价值分析与逻辑论证方法进行补充论证,电商平台违反安全保障义务应当承担补充责任,违反审核义务应当就损害扩大之部分承担连带责任,且有权向直接责任人进行追偿。Article 38 (2) of China’s Electronic Commerce Law establishes a unique security obligation for e-commerce platform operators, requiring them to make every effort to protect consumers’ right to life and health and minimize harm to consumers. The first and second paragraphs of Article 38 of the Electronic Commerce Law require e-commerce platforms that violate their obligations to bear “joint and several liability” and “corresponding liability”, which has significant room for specificity in interpretation and application. For the forms of liability applicable to violations of security and audit obligations, a systematic interpretation should be made in conjunction with other legal provisions. E-commerce platforms should not be overly demanded to bear excessive responsibility, as this will be detrimental to the prosperity and development of e-commerce. Value analysis and logical reasoning methods should be used to supplement the argument. E-commerce platforms that violate security obligations should bear supplementary liability, and those who violate audit obligations should bear joint and several liability for the expanded damage, and have the right to pursue compensation from the directly responsible person.展开更多
《中华人民共和国电子商务法》第38条规定了电商平台经营者对在平台上进行消费的消费者的人身及其财产权益应当进行保护。第二款将其明确为安全保障义务但未明确其具体内容及边界,并规定违反该义务应当承担法律责任但未明确具体的责任...《中华人民共和国电子商务法》第38条规定了电商平台经营者对在平台上进行消费的消费者的人身及其财产权益应当进行保护。第二款将其明确为安全保障义务但未明确其具体内容及边界,并规定违反该义务应当承担法律责任但未明确具体的责任形态。从现行立法规范层面,我国电子商务法第38条第1款与第2款之间还存在部分的内容重叠关系,与27条、29条在逻辑上也有一定联系,同时区别于《民法典》第1198条的安全保障义务。对平台的安全保障义务及法律责任可以对相关司法判决进行实证分析,同时采取法教义学的视角。确定平台安全保障义务的内容、明确相应责任多元化责任形态以及配置完善的举证责任制度,促进电商行业经济的有序、健康发展。Article 38 of the E-commerce Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that e-commerce platform operators shall protect the personal and property rights of consumers who consume on the platform. The second paragraph clearly defines it as a security obligation but does not specify its specific content and boundaries, and stipulates that those who violate this obligation should bear legal responsibility but does not specify the specific form of responsibility. At the level of current legislative norms, there is still some overlap between the first and second paragraphs of Article 38 of China’s E-commerce Law, which is logically related to Articles 27 and 29, and differs from the security obligations under Article 1198 of the Civil Code. The security obligations and legal responsibilities of the platform can be empirically analyzed through relevant judicial judgments, while also adopting a legal doctrinal perspective. The law should clarify the platform security obligations, corresponding forms of responsibility and the establishment of a perfect burden of proof system. Thus it can promote the orderly and healthy development of the e-commerce industry and economy.展开更多
文摘我国《电子商务法》第38条第2款规定,电商平台经营者有安全保障义务,不同于一般场所管理人,电子商务平台涉及虚拟网络空间,安保义务具有特殊性。本文首先论述平台经营者地位特殊性和承担更高安全保障义务的合理性。其次以侵权责任为视角,在认定平台经营者违反安全保障义务是否侵权责任基础上讨论责任构成,该责任是过错侵权,采用举证责任倒置的方法,因果关系上采用“若有,则无”的判断方法。再次区分38条1款和第2款,第1款调整的是帮助侵权,第2款调整的是分别侵权。最后认定“相应责任”形态为按份责任并阐述其合理性。Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of China’s E-Commerce Law stipulates that e-commerce platform operators have security obligations, and unlike general premises managers, e-commerce platforms are involved in virtual cyberspace, and the security obligations are of a special nature. This paper firstly discusses the special status of platform operators and the reasonableness of assuming higher security obligations. Secondly, from the perspective of tort liability, the platform operator violates the obligation of safety and security is discussed on the basis of the liability composition, the liability is fault infringement, using the method of reversing the burden of proof, causality using the “if there is, then there is no” judgment method. Again, a distinction is made between Article 38, Paragraphs 1 and 2, with Paragraph 1 regulating the tort of contribution and Paragraph 2 regulating the tort of separation. Finally, the form of “corresponding responsibility” is recognized and justified as contributory responsibility.
文摘我国《电子商务法》第38条第2款确立了电商平台经营者特有的安全保障义务,要求电商平台经营者尽最大努力保护消费者的生命健康权,减少对消费者的损害。《电子商务法》第38条第一款和第二款中要求违反义务的电商平台承担“连带责任”和“相应责任”,在解释适用上存在较大的具体化空间。对于违反安全保障义务及审核义务所适用的责任形态,应当结合其他法律规定进行体系性的解释,不能过分苛求电商平台承担过重的责任,这将不利于电子商务的繁荣发展,应当运用价值分析与逻辑论证方法进行补充论证,电商平台违反安全保障义务应当承担补充责任,违反审核义务应当就损害扩大之部分承担连带责任,且有权向直接责任人进行追偿。Article 38 (2) of China’s Electronic Commerce Law establishes a unique security obligation for e-commerce platform operators, requiring them to make every effort to protect consumers’ right to life and health and minimize harm to consumers. The first and second paragraphs of Article 38 of the Electronic Commerce Law require e-commerce platforms that violate their obligations to bear “joint and several liability” and “corresponding liability”, which has significant room for specificity in interpretation and application. For the forms of liability applicable to violations of security and audit obligations, a systematic interpretation should be made in conjunction with other legal provisions. E-commerce platforms should not be overly demanded to bear excessive responsibility, as this will be detrimental to the prosperity and development of e-commerce. Value analysis and logical reasoning methods should be used to supplement the argument. E-commerce platforms that violate security obligations should bear supplementary liability, and those who violate audit obligations should bear joint and several liability for the expanded damage, and have the right to pursue compensation from the directly responsible person.
文摘《中华人民共和国电子商务法》第38条规定了电商平台经营者对在平台上进行消费的消费者的人身及其财产权益应当进行保护。第二款将其明确为安全保障义务但未明确其具体内容及边界,并规定违反该义务应当承担法律责任但未明确具体的责任形态。从现行立法规范层面,我国电子商务法第38条第1款与第2款之间还存在部分的内容重叠关系,与27条、29条在逻辑上也有一定联系,同时区别于《民法典》第1198条的安全保障义务。对平台的安全保障义务及法律责任可以对相关司法判决进行实证分析,同时采取法教义学的视角。确定平台安全保障义务的内容、明确相应责任多元化责任形态以及配置完善的举证责任制度,促进电商行业经济的有序、健康发展。Article 38 of the E-commerce Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that e-commerce platform operators shall protect the personal and property rights of consumers who consume on the platform. The second paragraph clearly defines it as a security obligation but does not specify its specific content and boundaries, and stipulates that those who violate this obligation should bear legal responsibility but does not specify the specific form of responsibility. At the level of current legislative norms, there is still some overlap between the first and second paragraphs of Article 38 of China’s E-commerce Law, which is logically related to Articles 27 and 29, and differs from the security obligations under Article 1198 of the Civil Code. The security obligations and legal responsibilities of the platform can be empirically analyzed through relevant judicial judgments, while also adopting a legal doctrinal perspective. The law should clarify the platform security obligations, corresponding forms of responsibility and the establishment of a perfect burden of proof system. Thus it can promote the orderly and healthy development of the e-commerce industry and economy.
