The Jurist

Current Issue

  • Select all
    |
  • Self-Responsibility of a Third Party and Result Attribution to the Actor
    BAI Langtao
    2026(3): 1-15.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    Determining the grounds on which a result is attributed to an actor is one of the most fundamental issues in criminal law.There are two primary justifications: control and duty.First, the opposite of control is responsibility.The attribution of results in cases of intentional conduct is based on the control of will, which is mutually exclusive.Therefore, in scenarios involving “intentional conduct+intentional conduct,” the attribution relationship between the actor and the third party may be exclusive.Second, the consequence of duty violation is responsibility.The attribution of results in cases of negligent conduct is based on duty violation, which is not mutually exclusive.Similarly, in scenarios involving “negligent conduct+intentional conduct,” the attribution relationship between the actor and the third party is not necessarily exclusive.Result attribution in cases of negligent conduct requires a two-step analysis. (1) Risk Creation: Assessing the illegality of the conduct at this stage requires examining the establishment and allocation of duties of care.The principle of reliance is merely a conclusion of duty allocation, not its basis. (2) Risk materialization: Determining result attribution at this stage requires assessing the protective scope and effectiveness of the duty of care.A duty is invalid if it exceeds the actor's capacity to fulfill it, specifically in terms of the foreseeability and avoidability of the result.A violation of an invalid duty lacks illegality and therefore excludes result attribution.
  • The Autonomy of China's International Law Knowledge System from A Knowledge-Power Perspective:Significance and Pathways
    LIU Yang
    2026(3): 16-30.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    In constructing China's autonomous international law knowledge system, it is critical to understand the significance of such a knowledge system, which can be analyzed within the theoretical framework of the relationship between knowledge and power.International law knowledge differs from domestic law knowledge in the mechanism by which knowledge generates power.International law knowledge is closely linked to the power of international governance and serves as an important mechanism for shaping the world order.Its influence on power is exerted not only by directly and explicitly affecting policy-making, rule-making and adjudication, but also in more subtle ways, such as shaping the boundaries of expertise, setting agendas, and obscuring critical issues.The key to constructing China's autonomous knowledge system of international law lies in agenda autonomy.Therefore, international law corresponds to multinational, international and transnational mechanisms and involves a global expert community.The pursuit of autonomy in the knowledge system rests on commonality rather than particularity.The construction of such an autonomous knowledge system requires not only the production of knowledge, but also the development of institutions for knowledge selection, circulation and consumption.It demands not only the active participation of Chinese scholars themselves, but also integration with exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations and mobilizing the international expert community.It should open to other disciplines rather than limiting to international law expert community.
  • Normative Application and Categorization of the Alternative Restoration Responsibility in the Era of the Eco-Environment Code
    QIN Tianbao
    2026(3): 31-47.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    In the judicial remedy for damage to the ecological environment, the direct application of liability for restoring the eco-environment often encounters practical obstacles, while an over-reliance on liability for monetary compensation leads to challenges in fund management and utilization.Alternative restoration can alleviate this contradiction to a certain extent; both alternative and direct restoration aim at recovering the integrated interests of the eco-environment, falling under the broad category of restitutio in integrum as a flexible adaptation of direct restoration in terms of nature, space, and time.Although the Eco-Environment Code establishes alternative restoration Responsibility at the codification level for the first time, providing a legal basis for its implementation, its normative application remains to be clarified.As both alternative restoration and monetary compensation serve as alternative forms of direct restoration, their applicable relationship constitutes a challenge in practice.Through a typological approach, the relationship between the two can be rationalized: the damage indemnification effect of heterogeneous alternative restoration is weaker than direct restoration but stronger than monetary compensation, placing its priority between the two; the effect of off-site alternative restoration diminishes as spatial distance increases, yet it precedes monetary compensation when the restoration occurs within the same county as the damage; and heterochronic alternative restoration manifests in judicial practice as either restoration or the prevention of future damage, where the liability for monetary compensation and the liability for alternative restoration are identical in nature, and prevention-oriented methods such as “compensation of labor service” or “technical transformation deductions”, rank lower in priority than monetary compensation and require strict scrutiny regarding their necessity, effectiveness, and feasibility.
  • Major Innovations and Challenge Responses in the Ecological and Environmental Code:Thoughts from the Perspective of Natural Public Property
    GONG Gu
    2026(3): 48-62.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    Modern environmental law is undergoing a historical transformation from a crisis-response mechanism to a legal framework for the stewardship of public property.The Ecological and Environmental Code, guided by the concept of natural public goods, introduces groundbreaking provisions in terms of its scope and objects, consideration of natural elements, value objectives, institutional design, and systemic mechanisms.It has effectively become a law for the stewardship of public property, marking its most fundamental and significant innovation.However, since mainstream legal theory in China has not yet formally recognized the concept of public goods, relevant provisions face issues such as a lack of legal basis, unclear theoretical foundations, and weak institutional mechanisms, leading to multiple challenges.Therefore, it is necessary to formally establish the theory of public property, interpret the relevant provisions and institutional arrangements of the Code from the perspective of natural public property stewardship, strengthen its legal foundation, address difficult issues in key areas, and gradually implement the concept of natural public goods through specific institutional designs, thereby safeguarding the natural wealth collectively owned by the people.
  • The Constitutive Elements of Ecological and Environmental Crimes under the Framework of“Dual Sources of Law”
    JIAO Yanpeng
    2026(3): 63-76.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    The constitutive elements of ecological and environmental crimes in China exhibit a distinct phenomenon of cross-code distribution, necessitating an analysis within the context of “dual sources of law”(the Ecological and Environmental Code and the Criminal Law).Traditional criminal theory was developed in the era of “natural crimes”.As a criminal form with significant “administrative crime” characteristics since the industrial age, the objective elements of ecological and environmental crimes mainly stem from environmental protection laws, while their subjective elements require a comprehensive determination based on environmental protection laws, the General Provisions, and the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law.Elements such as administrative subordination, harmful acts, harmful consequences, and awareness of illegality within the constitutive elements of ecological and environmental crimes are articulated both in the Criminal Law (including its judicial interpretations) and in ecological environmental laws.The assessment of these elements demands a holistic legal and rule-of-law mindset to seek normative grounds within an integrated legal system comprising ecological environmental laws, the Criminal Law, the Constitution, and basic administrative laws.Such a systemic approach is essential to enhancing the judicial efficacy of the rule of law in addressing ecological and environmental crimes, thereby fostering the coordinated development of China's ecological civilization and its legal system.
  • On the Tort Liability of Scraping Publicly Available Personal Data
    SHEN Jianzhou
    2026(3): 77-90.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    The tort liability associated with data scraping essentially epitomizes the fundamental tort law dilemma of balancing rights protection with behavioral freedom within the digital economy.As publicly available personal data simultaneously embodies data property interests and personal information rights, scraping activities can precipitate multiple forms of damage.In terms of data property interests, scraping that inflicts either competitive harm or operational interference upon a platform's data utilization constitutes a tort; nevertheless, these two types of infringement differ significantly in damage assessment, fault determination, and methods of liability.Within the ambit of the right to data portability, individual authorization can legitimize the competitive damage induced by scraping, yet it does not preclude the constitution of an interference-based tort.Concerning personal information rights, the scraping party bears presumed fault liability for damages arising from scraping that exceeds the reasonable scope of processing publicly available personal data, and compliance with the Robots Exclusion Protocol cannot serve as an exculpatory defense.Although the scraper may invoke “excessive performance costs” as grounds to refuse data deletion, it remains liable for compensatory damages.Furthermore, if the source platform breaches its personal information protection obligations, it shall assume supplementary liability commensurate with its fault, whilst retaining the right to seek recourse against the scraping party.
  • Data Asset Contribution as Capital:Key Issues and Regulatory Solutions
    WANG Yixuan
    2026(3): 91-105.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    The contribution of data assets as capital represents an innovative form of data asset circulation and utilization.The development of institutional rules should be based on the essential attributes of data, adhere to the fundamental value concepts of Company Law, and appropriately balance autonomy and regulation, making adaptive interpretations to the existing capital contribution rules within the Company Law framework.The subject matter of data asset contribution is the property right in data.A contributor may make capital contribution either with the full property right in data, or with an independent right to use or operate data.Since the circulation and utilization of data constitute the main way to realize data value, contribution based on the right to use or operate data should serve as the primary form of data asset contribution, and the sole form for the contribution of public data.Concerning the contribution agreement, valuation by a third-party appraisal institution is not mandatory; the price mutually agreed upon by the contributor and the company is deemed fair.In terms of agreement terms, restricting the proportion of data asset contribution is unnecessary.However, the contributed data assets should be required to be relevant to the company's business operations.Regarding the performance of contribution obligations, contributors typically bear collateral obligations.These collateral obligations do not terminate or transfer upon the contributor's subsequent sale of their shares.In terms of liability for capital deficiencies, it is essential to enhance the responsibility system for directors and management in maintaining capital adequacy.This involves clearly distinguishing the roles of directors and defining responsibilities for assessment, collection, and inspection to achieve a more detailed accountability framework for directors.
  • The Reason-Giving Obligation of Differentiated Judgments and Its Logical Elaboration
    LIU Lei
    2026(3): 106-119.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    While emphasizing “like cases be treated alike”, we should not overlook the practical significance of differentiated judgments, nor simply regard them as the antithesis of this principle.Legitimate differentiated judgments derive from the non-absoluteness of the principle of “like cases be treated alike” and also constitute its dynamic adjustment.Judicial practice regarding differentiated judgments exhibits two dilemmatic deviations:“over-application” and “over-conservatism”, which makes it all the more necessary to clarify the reason-giving obligation therein.Compared with the reason-giving obligation of general judgments, the reason-giving obligation of differentiated judgments has special characteristics in aspects such as reasoning logic and argument structure, audience expectations and reasoning objectives, obligation attributes and constraint intensity, as well as reasoning functions and operational logic.The content of the reason-giving obligation for differentiated judgments mainly includes three dimensions: reasoning on differences in fact-finding, reasoning on differences in value weighing, and reasoning on differences in legal interpretation.Among these, the first two are the fundamental dimensions, while reasoning on differences in legal interpretation is an incidental extension of the first two, yet it still holds undeniable significance.The effectiveness of reasoning for differentiated judgments not only depends on the completeness of content elements but also needs to be based on China's civil law system and judicial operation mechanism, constructing an institutional system from aspects such as the construction of substantive norms, the establishment of procedural mechanisms, the optimization of document carriers, and the development of supervision and guarantee mechanisms.
  • Systematic Reform of the Time Limit for Instituting Administrative Litigation
    WANG Guisong
    2026(3): 120-133.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    The time limit for instituting litigation is a procedural system under the Administrative Litigation Law, with a similar litigation effect to the statute of limitations.It is primarily aimed at early ascertainment of administrative legal relations and protection of legal certainty, with its institutional design consistently protecting the parties' right to litigation.In terms of institutional design, consistent attention is paid to protecting the parties' right to litigation.Currently, the time limit for instituting litigation is uniformly applied to all types of claims, yet it should be restricted to claims for revoking administrative decisions.Claims for performance, which are forward-looking, ought not to be subject to such a time limit, and declaratory claims should only be bound by the requirement of declaratory interest.The time limit for instituting litigation comprises both subjective and objective periods.For the calculation of the subjective time limit, the criterion shall be whether the right holder is in a position to exercise the right to litigation.Where there are obstacles to the right holder's exercise of the right to litigation, the existing law stipulates the suspension and extension of the time limit for instituting litigation.However, these two provisions are difficult to distinguish and produce similar effects, hence they may be unified into a single regulation, and the causes for suspension shall be categorized.This is to enable the parties to accurately understand the rules and effectively exercise their right to litigation.Only when the time limit for instituting litigation is properly designed can the relationship between legal certainty and the protection of the right to litigation be reasonably balanced.
  • The Justification of Independent Decriminalization with Proviso in Article 13 of Criminal Law
    ZHANG Yaping
    2026(3): 134-147.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    Most scholars in the field of criminal law in China regard the proviso in article 13 of Criminal Law as the restrictive conditions of crime in the constitution system, and hold that the circumstances in the proviso are the same as those in the specific provisions as the quantitative factors of crime.However, in judicial practice, proviso is more often regarded as an independent cause of decriminalization outside the constitution system.The fundamental reason for the divergence between theory and practice lies in the different interpretations of the relationship between the circumstances of proviso and the quantitative circumstances of crime in the specific provisions.Proviso does not belong to the system of quantitative elements of a crime, and there are essential differences between the circumstances of proviso and the quantitative circumstances of crime in the specific provisions, and they two carry different functions.The function of the degree circumstances of crime in the specific provisions is to limit the scope of crime from the quantity of illegality, however, the circumstances of proviso are the causes of decriminalization because of absence of need for punishment under the consideration of criminal policy.The need for punishment depends on the necessity of prevention, including special prevention and general prevention.Therefore, the circumstances of proviso include those which reflect the absence of necessity of special prevention and those which reflect the absence of necessity of general prevention.If the act constitutes a crime, it is punishable, but if the “harm is not serious”, it can be decriminalized according to the proviso because of absence of need for punishment.
  • On the Economic Law Regulation of Generative Engine Optimization
    GE Jiangqiu
    2026(3): 148-161.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is typologized into four modalities based on patterns: source-based, long-tail, reputation-control, and model-intervention, necessitating a regulatory paradigm shift from traditional SEO.In light of economic law principles and GEO practices, this paper establishes four criteria for legality assessment-authenticity, transparency, legitimacy, and proportionality-to be applied distinctively according to GEO types.A robust regulatory framework can be constructed through the interpretive application of legal norms, such as deceptive publicity regulations, disclosure mandates for advertising, and both specific and general clauses of unfair competition law.The regulatory outcomes will be further enhanced through the collaborative governance of enforcement bodies, the judiciary, AI service providers, and consumers.
  • Liability for Joint Suretyship in the Absence of Agreement on Suretyship Shares
    WANG Yegang
    2026(3): 162-175.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    Where two or more guarantors exist for the same obligation without an agreement on their respective shares of guarantee, Article 699 of the Chinese Civil Code has revised the previous presumptive rule of joint and several liability under Article 12 of the former Guarantee Law.Nevertheless, considerable controversies remain.As to the forms of joint guaranty, in accordance with the fundamental principles of the interpretation of manifestation of intent, joint and several guaranty liability shall be established only if the parties expressly agree on it, or if the guarantors are proved to have a common intent to share the guaranty liability.As to the scope of each guarantor's liability, if joint and several guaranty liability is established, the scope of guaranty liability shall be determined by the agreement between the guarantor and the creditor; if not, each guarantor shall be liable to the creditor within its agreed scope of guaranty liability or for the full performance of the obligation.In principle, no guarantor shall have a right of recourse against other guarantors, as bearing guaranty liability shall neither constitute performance by a third party nor give rise to a statutory transfer of the claim.A right of recourse among guarantors shall be legally enforceable only in either of the following circumstances: a joint and several guarantee is established among them, or the guarantors have expressly agreed on the right of recourse.
  • Prolegomenon to the Elements of Equity Transfer——Focusing on the Delimitation between Equity Acquisition and Equity Exercise
    LI Ruoqi
    2026(3): 176-189.
    Abstract ( ) Download PDF ( )   Knowledge map   Save
    The “Draft Judicial Interpretation of the Company Law” adopts a normative framework where the acquisition and exercise of equity are mutually embedded and isomorphic, which leads to structural flaws in the normative logic, institutional values, and systemic integration of equity transfer rules.In the normative progression from the transfer of rights to their realization, the independence of the acquisition elements stems from the protection and exclusivity provided to the transferee, and the intervention of corporate will serves only to block the realization of such equity.As an abstract right, equity is acquired through a valid agreement on equity transfer, while its exercise is predicated upon notifying the company.Where the company maintains a shareholder register, a reasonable refusal to record the entry constitutes a ground for defense regarding the subsequent divestment of the transferee's equity.In the absence of such a register, the company may assert a right of defense against the exercise of equity if the transferee fails to satisfy the broad notification requirement; however, if procedural equity has already been exercised, the equity attains realizability.Delineating the constitutive elements of acquisition versus exercise, and clarifying the distinction between grounds for defense and rights of defense, will systematically refine the normative application of systems such as the right of first refusal, security by way of equity transfer, and the bona fide acquisition of equity.