Article 1195 of the Civil Code stipulates the “notice deletion” rule in the field of online infringement.It belongs to the Norms of Anspruchsgrundlage.The first two clauses and the third clause constitute independent Anspruchsgrundlage respectively.In terms of its relationship with Article 1197, this provision constitutes a special circumstance under Article 1197.Only through effective notification can the obligation to take necessary measures be derived.The necessary measures are not limited to deleting, blocking, and disconnecting links.The preliminary evidence of infringement and network service types have a substantial impact on the determination of such behavioral obligations.The timeliness of taking measures can be comprehensively judged based on factors such as the type and nature of network services, the accuracy of notifications, the degree of certainty of infringement, and the type and degree of infringement of rights and interests.The principle of attribution of liability for erroneous notification is also the principle of fault liability, and the forms of fault of the perpetrator of erroneous notification include intention and negligence.The contribution and degree of fault in causal relationships have a significant impact on determining the scope of compensation for damages.

Article 963 of the Civil Code contains both primary and secondary norms and is the core provision of the chapter on “Intermediary Contract”.The intermediary could claim remuneration from the client only if the intermediary provides the agreed intermediary services and facilitates the effective formation of the target contract.If the target contract is revoked or invalidated, the intermediary does not have the right to claim remuneration as if the contract has not been facilitated.If the target contract is rescinded, the intermediary's right to claim remuneration is in principle not affected, except in cases attributable to the intermediary.“Identicality” should be recognised according to a relaxed standard.As far as causality is concerned, it is not necessary that the reporting or mediating behaviour is the sole cause of the conclusion of the target contract, but rather that it is co-causal.If the parties have agreed on remuneration, it should be based on the agreement of the parties.In practice, there are many contracts that contain both intermediary and mandate elements; if the intermediary only completes the intermediary service, the remuneration should be reduced accordingly.If there is no agreement, the remuneration should be determined in accordance with supplementary explanations or default clauses, and the intermediary's labor as a criterion should be limited.Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, in the case of mandated by both parties in intermediation, the remuneration is borne equally by the parties.Since the expenses of performing intermediary activities are included in the remuneration, they are borne by the intermediary.

The forms of liability for tort compensation include several types: several liability, joint liability, partial joint liability, quasi-joint liability, and corresponding supplementary liability.The statutory nature of joint liability does not require that every type of joint liability must be specifically provided for by corresponding legal provisions.In the case of liability for multiple tortfeasors, it is important to distinguish between the establishment of tort compensation liability and the assumption of that liability.Once the liability of each tortfeasor has been established, whether they are liable under several or joint liability should be determined based on the constitutive elements of several debts and joint debts as outlined in the Civil Code.The resulting joint liability and partial joint liability do not violate the requirement for the statutory nature of joint liability.The provisions made by lawmakers regarding joint liability in cases of multiple tortfeasors are aimed at better protecting the injured party and preventing and stopping tortious acts.Partial joint liability arises from the principle of causation and is a form of tort compensation liability that has long been recognized in our law, facilitating a balance between protecting rights and maintaining freedom of action.

Article 1198 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China requires operators of business premises, managers of public places, and organizers of mass activities to actively take reasonable preventive measures to avoid infringement of others' personal and property rights, which is a special provision of Article 1165(1)of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China.Due to the fact that this provision is a special requirement proposed by legislators for specific entities to assume security obligations, the scope of entities is limited and has the characteristics of legality and closure.The obligation to prevent intentional harm by third parties depends on whether the security obligor's initiation of social activities increases the substantive risk of intentional infringement.In the judgment of security obligations, due to the complexity and diversity of the obligation content, the judgment criteria cannot be uniform, and reference factors should be extracted for judges to specifically determine in individual cases.When intervening in third-party infringement, the inaction of the security obligor only fails to prevent the third party from causing harm, and is not sufficient to cause damage independently.The construction of supplementary liability is reasonable.The applicable conditions for supplementary liability are that the failure to fulfill the obligation of security protection constitutes a minor fault and is an indirect cause of harm.The weak foundation of liability limits the priority and scope of the responsibility of the security obligor.The implementation of supplementary liability is not in the litigation stage but in the execution stage.

To build an independent knowledge system of criminal jurisprudence, it is necessary to dig deeply and absorb reasonably the wisdom crystallization and essence of Chinese excellent traditional culture, and realize creative transformation and innovative development of traditional culture.There is no contradiction between building an independent knowledge system of criminal law and learning from theories of foreign criminal law.The academic circle of criminal law should actively learn from and absorb foreign excellent criminal law theories with an open and confident attitude, rather than rejecting foreign theories.To construct an independent knowledge system of criminal jurisprudence, it is necessary to properly deal with the relationship between hot issues and basic theories.The basic theory is the premise of constructing the independent knowledge system of criminal law.Without the support of basic theoretical research, the discussion of hot issues is only repetition at low-level.To construct an independent knowledge system of criminal law, it is necessary to conduct academic criticism under the atmosphere of academic freedom, but academic criticism and academic interference should be strictly distinguished, and no interference in others' academic freedom should be carried out under the disguise of academic criticism.To construct an independent knowledge system of criminal law, it is necessary to correctly handle the relationship between academic disputes and academic consensus.Although criminal law scholars should have the consciousness of forming consensus, they should not give up academic disputes as a price.An independent knowledge system of criminal law needs to be constructed and improved in the process of constantly disputing, overthrowing old consensus and forming new consensus.

The Article 702 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China grants the guarantor the right to refuse to assume the guaranty liability on the grounds that the debtor has the right of set-off or the right of revocation.This is a temporary defense in nature, aimed at protecting the guarantor from being adversely affected by changes in legal relations that may arise from the debtor's subsequent exercise of the forementioned rights.The application of this provision is based on the premise that the debtor has but has not yet exercised the right of set-off or the right of revocation.The term “right of set-off” as mentioned in this article includes both statutory and contractual set-off rights, and the “right of revocation” mainly refers to the debtor's right to rescind the principal contract due to defects in the expression of intent.If the debtor waives his right of set-off or the right of revocation, the guarantor may no longer refuse to assume the guaranty liability to the creditor.This article may be applied by analogy to situations where the debtor has a statutory right of termination, but it should not be applied by analogy to situations where the debtor has an arbitrary right of termination, the right of withdrawal, the right of choice in alternative obligation, or where the creditor unilaterally has the right of revocation.Furthermore, if the amount of liquidated damages stipulated in the principal contract is significantly higher than the damages suffered by the creditor, the provisions of Article 701 of the “Civil Code of the People's Republic of China” should be applied by analogy, allowing the guarantor to apply for judicial reduction of the amount of liquidated damages.Whether the guarantor raises defense under this provision under this article does not affect the debtor's exercise of their right of set-off or defense rights.The rights and obligations between the guarantor and the debtor will be handled according to their internal relationship.

Article 10 Clause 2 of the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Tax Evasion establishes exemption clauses, excluding from the scope of the crime of false issuance of VAT special invoices those acts that are not committed with the purpose of defrauding state taxes and do not result in actual tax losses to the state.This provision restricts the constitutive elements of the crime from both the purpose and result dimensions.Purpose Restriction: The exemption clause characterizes the crime as a non-statutory purpose crime by requiring the subjective element of “intent to defraud state taxes.” This represents a substantive reasoning approach that incorporates purposive analysis into the constitutive elements of the crime.Result Restriction: The clause mandates that the crime must result in actual tax losses caused by the use of the falsely issued invoices for tax deductions.Consequently, transactions involving “false issuance with actual goods”(e.g., substitute invoicing in bona fide commercial contexts)that do not lead to tax losses are excluded from criminal liability.The establishment of these exemption clauses holds significant practical importance for correctly adjudicating cases of false VAT invoice issuance in judicial practice.

The reason why the rights of consumers of commercial property need to be protected in priority must be examined from two aspects: theoretical basis and normative application.At the level of theoretical basis, the theoretical basis for the priority of protection of commercial property consumers' rights is not the right of expectation and there is no analogy for the rule of “buyer in ordinary course of business”.The super-priority protection of the rights of consumers of commercial property reflects the priority allocation of the principle of priority claims based on the needs of the public interest.Real estate companies are better risk-takers in forward housing transaction model in China.From the perspective of distributive justice, the priority protection of commercial property consumers is justified, which can resolve the tension between the risk of the real estate market and the dual attributes of commercial property.The jurisprudential basis for the priority protection of the rights of consumers of commercial property lies in the jurisprudential principle of reliance liability, and the nature of the right shall be statutory priority specially provided for the equitable purpose of public interest.At the level of normative application, consumers of commercial property and investment merchants shall be distinguished, and the residential purpose of consumers of commercial property shall be measured objectively and dynamically, and their super-priority protection status shall be clarified.

The systematic process of civil law during the Beiyang period is mainly reflected in the compilation of Civil Code based on the Draft Civil Code of the Qing Dynasty.During the Beiyang period, although the Supreme Court established the order of application of civil laws in practice with its judicial power, the lack of a systematic civil law still led to problems in judicial practice, such as unclear scope of legal sources, excessive subjectivity of judges, and a lack of unified guidance on the superior value of civil law.For this reason, the northern and southern regimes during the Beiyang period carried out several civil law systematization projects based on the systematic structure of the Draft Civil Code of the Qing Dynasty. These methods included the provisional application of the Draft Civil Code of the Qing Dynasty, making it effective through legislative procedures, and using the format of this draft to compile civil precedents by judicial organs.The plan of the compilation of the Draft Civil Code of the Republic of China and the Civil Code of the Republic of China also emerged during the legislative process of the Draft Civil Code of the Qing Dynasty.Both legal documents played an important role in the final completion of the Republic of China's civil law system.The compilation of the Civil Code to achieve the systematization of civil law reflects Code Centrism, which still has an impact on the construction of the contemporary Chinese civil law system.

States, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (VCLT), are granted broad discretion over how to apply treaties; especially, due to the growing impacts of treaties, which especially refer to regulatory treaties, how domestic courts apply treaties becomes more complicated and accordingly the judicial system of treaty application has been more nationalism-oriented.Therefore, in order to improve Chinese judicial system of treaty application, we should firstly identify the benchmark and constituents for this system.That is, this system should not only ensure accurate application of treaties by courts, but it should also consider the relevant background factors, including constitutional framework, foreign policy purposes In addition, it should include both constitutive elements (including effect and explanation of treaties) and enabling elements (for example, inter-agency relations and capacity building).Especially, China, in improving the judicial system of treaty application, should consider the new opportunities, new demands and new challenges deriving from the changed background of the collaboration between domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law, the modernization of national governance system and governance capability, the profound transformation of international landscape and, especially, the enactment of the Law of Foreign Relations.Due to the significance of the inter-agency relationship on the improvement of judicial system of treaty application and, especially, the accurate application of treaties, Chinese legislature, executive and judicial branches should work on better inter-agency relations arrangement.

Article 89 of the new “Company Law” has been amended to add a new Section 3, establishing a right to request share repurchasing with the purpose of regulating the oppression by controlling shareholders.This new legal provision still has deficiencies in terms of explaining its regulatory foundations, the factual constituent elements, and legal effect.Therefore, it is necessary to clarify its normative structure.Given that any company is free to dispose of its proprietary assets depending on its own willingness, the company is entitled to repurchase other shareholders' shares.However, the ultimate purpose of the right to request repurchasing is to restore the original state for the shareholder's damage.This should be comprehensively explained through a combination of Article 21 (2) and Article 89 (3), with Article 21 (2) holding a superior position unless the company itself has apparent fault contributing to the damaging result.The essence of abuse of control pertains to the improper exercise of control within corporate governance, with an overall assessment of factors such as the mechanisms of control, management of corporate affairs, imbalance of rights, and the presence of fault.In the broader conceptual framework, it is essential to consider the erosion of minority shareholders' reasonable expectations.The severity of the infringing conduct should be evaluated by considering the manifestations of rights abuse and the substantive outcomes it produces.The legal relationship surrounding share repurchase constitutes a statutory debt obligation, where the right to claim is inherently non-transferable, and the debtor is precluded from invoking defenses such as impossibility of performance.In instances where the company assumes debt without fault, it remains obligated to provide a detailed explanation.Remedies and valuation should be reviewed, taking into consideration the valuation date and the share repurchase price, which, apart from being based on the company's net assets as a valuation benchmark or considering the company's quasi-partnership nature, must also integrate various factors to determine the discount standards.Through doctrinal explanation, a systematic and applicable regime should be established for the share repurchasing right of claim.

The moderate-scale agricultural operation is the necessary way for Chinese-style agricultural modernization.Under China's basic national agricultural conditions, the scale operation of land and the scale operation of services have their applicable space.The legal technical tools for moderate-scale land operation can be the creation of land management right under the “Separation of Three Land Rights” or the transfer or exchange of land contract management rights under the “Separation of Two Land Rights”; both of which have to curb the “non-agriculturalization” and prevent “conversion of arable land to other types of agricultural land” and meet the standard of “moderation”.The service-scale operation takes the agricultural production trusteeship as the main form, and its development is based on the contract between the farmer and the agricultural socialized service organization, but the conclusion of the service contract needs to be organized and coordinated by the rural collective economic organization.

The concept of subjective rights has two aspects, one is subjective consciousness and the other is technical.The former defines subjective rights as more psychologically meaningful things such as freedom and willpower, while the latter is reflected in the use of subjective rights to organize private law rules and construct private law systems.Subjective rights have declined under the criticism of positivist scholars such as Léon Duguit and Hans Kelsen, and scholars have also realized the limitations of the concept of subjective rights, which has given rise to the perplexing problem of “non subject rights”.However, it has become a habitual discourse and a thinking pattern for legal professionals, and can only remain incomplete.Subjective rights and objective law do not overlap, and the discourse of subjective rights cannot fully cover objective law.There is still an open space left, which should be filled by the discourse of objective law.

In the digital age, new forms of infringement such as internet infringement, personal information infringement and artificial intelligence infringement have emerged, which challenge the traditional tort law's determination of damage, fault judgment, causality analysis and relief measures.The root cause of these challenges lies in the fact that traditional tort law is rooted in a society with traditional concepts and takes intentional infringement without spillover as a typical scene, while the new infringement in the digital era shows characters such as large-scale micro-infringement, large-scale convergent infringement and governance infringement, which has both private law elements and public law elements.In the digital age, tort law should focus on shifting from subjective fault and causality judgment to responsibility distribution, from damage compensation to reasonable deterrence and prevention.From individual relief to group welfare protection, on this basis, the specific tort law institution of network platform, personal information and artificial intelligence infringement is constructed.The governance function of tort law may face external and internal criticism, but the relevant criticism can be refuted.The tort liability of China's Civil Code includes both traditional and modern tort law, so we should pay attention to its dual structure and strengthen the understanding and application of the governance function of modern tort law.

The dichotomy of real rights and debt originates from the distinction of the types of relationship in social life, and has a high degree of legitimacy in the field within its radiation.China's civil law has inherited the system of Separating Real Rights and Debt from German law, but there are some local practices that may exert an impact on the system of bifurcation of real rights and debt.For these possible impacts, an explanation compatible with the established system can be derived through doctrinal work.Under the registration confrontation doctrine, undisclosed changed real rights are still complete real rights, which is basically the same as the legal status formed in the false appearance situation under the effective publicity system.The undisclosed ‘not opposable to bona fide third parties’ rule can be given a relatively concise structure guided by the principle of reliance.The enhanced rights enjoyed by the buyer of a particular immovable property are real rights.In this way, the concept of real rights remains uniform while not conflicting with the registration confrontation doctrine.

The newly added Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2018 requires people's courts to “generally adopt” sentencing recommendations made by people's procuratorates in guilty plea cases.This regulation has sparked disputes between the procuratorate and court, and among academia, and has had a wide-ranging impact on judicial practice.This article argues that the “generally should adopt” clause, which grants substantive binding force to sentencing recommendations in guilty plea cases, is basically untenable, violating the doctrine of separation of powers between the prosecution and the judiciary and the constitutional principle of “the Public Security Organs, the People's Procuratorate and the People's Court should each be responsible for their respective tasks, work together with each other, and act as checks on each other”.It is also against the inquisitorial tradition of the Chinese guilty plea system and the “discretionary leniency” nature for the circumstance of the accused's confession and acceptance of punishment, and does not conform to the universal experience of collaborative criminal justice in the two legal systems.The legislature should abolish the “should generally adopt” clause when amending the Criminal Procedure Law for the fourth time, and unify provisions on the adoption standards of sentencing recommendations for non-guilty plea cases as well as guilty plea cases.

The revised Administrative Reconsideration Law adjusts the mode of the alteration decision to a definitive application in limited circumstances.Definitive application in limited circumstances is a modification of mixed application, aiming to strengthen the application of the alteration decision in specific circumstances.Under the positioning of administrative reconsideration as “the main channel for resolving administrative disputes”, definitive application in limited circumstances contains the dual orientations of definitive application and limited application.Of the three limited circumstances in which definitive application is made,“inappropriate content” should be limited to defects in the substantive content effect discretion within the scope of statutory discretion and exclude abuse of power;“incorrect application basis” should be clearly distinguished from “lack of basis” and “illegal application basis”;“unclear facts, insufficient evidence, facts and evidence are clarified by the administrative reconsideration organ” shall be applied at the discretion of the reconsideration organ, taking into account the characteristics of case facts.Achieving definitive application in limited circumstances of the alteration decision requires the establishment of safeguards to protect the interests of the applicant through the prohibition of adverse alterations and a hearing procedure to make applicant willing to accept the variation decision.Strengthening the institutional capacity of the reconsideration organ should be achieved through the establishment of the Administrative Reconsideration Board as a consultative organ, so as to encourage it to proactively make alteration decisions.

After the “Interpretation on Tax-related Criminal Offenses” stipulated that “falsely offsetting input tax” is a “deceptive or concealing means” of tax evasion, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have had significant differences in judicial application, respectively proposing application standards based on subjective and objective approaches.This divergence stems from different understandings of the relationship between the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices and the crime of tax evasion.Tax evasion is an omission crime of evading the obligation to pay taxes, while the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices, as a special fraud crime, includes the substantive preparatory offense of “deceiving” to offset national tax and the substantive offense.However, tax evasion committed by deceptive means also has a fraudulent nature, and thus, it is impossible to precisely demarcate the boundaries between the two crimes.Based on the fundamental principles of tax crimes, the true dividing line lies in the fundamental differences in the nature of obtaining special VAT invoices and the substantive loss of national tax.Cases of “falsely offsetting input tax”,“falsely offsetting” and “deceiving to offset” have different act unlawfulness and result unlawfulness, and should respectively constitute the crime of tax evasion and the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices.Regarding the issue of proportionality between crime and punishment for the two crimes, it can be effectively addressed by distinguishing the statutory penalty ranges of the basic offense and the aggravated offense of the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices.

Article 157 of China's Civil Code regulates not only the restitution rule, but also the indemnification rule, compensation rule, comparative negligence rule, etc, when a legal transaction is invalid or revoked.Article 24 and 25 of Judicial Interpretation of General Rules of Contracts of China's Civil Code make a more elaborate explanation of article 157 of China's Civil Code.Firstly, the restitution rules should be separated outrightly from compensation rules, and rules concerning restitution of contract can be stipulated into one rule since its independent existence has justifications.Secondly, restitution of property acquired by the invalid or revoked legal act can be differentiated into three claims, including restitution of the enrichment, restitution of subrogation properties and restitution of uses.The object of restitution is the specific object received by the debtor of enrichment through payment or other means; in the restitution of subrogation properties, in principle, the value of subrogation properties is not taken into account; the consideration obtained by the debtor of enrichment by selling the object of enrichment is not subrogation property, and is not required to be returned.In principle, the debtor of enrichment has the obligation to return only the uses actually received.Lastly, in case of impossibility or unnecessity of restitution, debtor should make indemnification.The criterion for the valuation of indemnification is mainly the objective value of uses received by debtor of enrichment.When the restitution's impossibility is due to the nature of performance, the time of enrichment and the arising of the earliest claim of indemnification is the time for the valuing of indemnification.As to a subsequent impossibility restitution, the time of valuation is the time of impossibility or the arising of indemnification due to the impossibility.Other reasonable valuating methods are also allowed according to the second half sentence of paragraph 1 of article 24 of Judicial Interpretation of General Rules of Contracts of China's Civil Code.

Accepting bribes through proxy holding is an important manifestation of new and implicit corruption.There is no consensus in the theoretical community regarding the criminal nature of proxy bribery, especially the determination of attempted bribery, and there are inconsistent determinations in practice.The criminal law response to proxy bribery requires the interpretation of the criminal law rather than new legislations.On the one hand, the standard for attempted bribery through proxy cannot be separated from the provisions of the current criminal law, and it is necessary to adhere to the traditional theory of actual control over the bribe property.On the other hand, it is also necessary to change the mindset that equates actual control with absolute and complete control.In response to the special nature of proxy bribery, we need to grasp the essence of power money transactions through the phenomenon of proxy, and provide a new interpretation of actual control.Actual control does not need to reach the level of absolute and complete control over the property.As long as the bribe taker has relative control over the bribe property at the time of the incident, it should be deemed as completed bribery.In the case of relative control, due to the fact that the briber and the bribe taker often jointly control and dispose of property, if the briber unilaterally overturns the proxy agreement before the incident, it is considered an attempt for the bribe taker due to reasons beyond their will.In the case of losing relative control, it should be considered as an attempt.The concept of relative control appropriately moves forward the time point of the completion of proxy holding bribery, which can meet the current need for strict punishment of new and hidden corruption.

The first and most important step in interpreting a contract is to search for and determine the meaning of the words and phrases in the contract.The meaning of contract words and phrases should be determined based on the rational person's understanding of the words and phrases in the context of the contract.The meaning assigned to a certain phrase by laws, regulations, rules, and judicial interpretations is mostly the usual meaning of the words and phrases.The usual meaning of disputed contract terms should not be limited to words, and it may be influenced by the complexity of the contractual relationship in which the terms are used.If there are other common understandings between the parties regarding the contract terms that differ from the usual meanings of words and phrases, as long as there is no statutory invalidity reason for such assigned meanings nor do they constitute a legal error, such other common understandings should be consistently determined as the meaning of the disputed contract words and phrases.When the understanding of a contract term between the parties differs from the definition of the term in laws, regulations, rules, or judicial interpretations, as long as the definition of the term in laws, regulations, rules, or judicial interpretations is not mandatory, the agreement of all parties should be respected.In some cases, if the parties to a contract assign a word or phrase with a meaning different from its usual meaning, it is not recognized by law in certain aspects and does not have legal effect.And in other aspects, legal effect can be granted according to its intention.

The concept of declaration of intent can only apply to natural persons.The term “declaration of intent by legal persons” only has descriptive significance and does not constitute a legal dogmatic concept; therefore, it cannot be split into internal intent and external declaration of the legal person.Legal persons can only undertake legal transactions through representation or agency mechanism.The nature of legal representation should be understood as statutory organ agency.The flaw in China's legal representation system lies in its separation of representative and executive organs, dividing representative and executive power.Although the theory of unity of organs and authorities cannot change the current legal status of organ separation, it still helps define the scope of legal representative power in legal dogmatics, thus facilitating the understanding of legal representative power restrictions.The “duty agency” system, first introduced in the General Provisions of Civil Law and later inherited by the Civil Code, is not a successful legislative design and should be replaced by potential typological rules in the future.

It has been ten years since the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18^th CPC Central Committee incorporated intraparty rules and regulations into the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics.Driven by policies, intraparty rules and regulations have become one of the key concerns of academic circles.Scholars in law, political science, and party building of the CPC have carried out many studies on intraparty rules and regulations.Academic circles, especially the legal circles, have conducted research on key issues such as the nature of intra-party regulations, the connection and coordination of party rules and laws, the effectiveness of intraparty rules and regulations, the systematization of intraparty rules and regulations and the implementation of systems, and have formed academic results that reflect the characteristics of intra-party regulations.With the in-depth advancement of comprehensive and strict governance of the party and in accordance with rules, we should pay attention to the orderly interaction between academic research and the practice of intraparty rules and regulations.At the same time, we should conduct in-depth research on how to further promote the construction of the intraparty rules and regulations system and pay attention to the study of local intraparty rules and regulations, clarify how intraparty rules and regulations and national laws can achieve a higher level of connection and coordination.At the same time, we should optimize the research methods of intra-party regulations and clarify the reference significance of intra-party regulations to the governance of political parties in the world.

The key of “investigation of offering and accepting bribes together” lies in “investigation together” rather than absolute “symmetrical punishment”.The symmetrical or asymmetric punishment of the crime of offering bribes and the crime of aueptance of bribes should not be a general concept, but should be classified according to the structural elements such as constitutive elements, penalty setting, sentencing circumstances and investigation procedures, and should be based on basic principles.The symmetry should be maintained in the constitutive elements, which is determined by the fact that the crime of offering bribes and the crime of accepting bribes are opposite crimes, and their essence is power-money exchange.In terms of penalty setting, the responsibility penalty and prevention penalty of the crime of accepting bribes are higher than that of the crime of offering bribes, so the punishment allocation should be asymmetrical.In terms of sentencing circumstances, because of the prisoner's dilemma theory, the special confession system of the crime of offering bribes should be retained and not overly restricted, while the special leniency system of the crime of accepting bribes should be abolished to maintain asymmetry.Seven serious circumstances of the crime of offering bribes should be deleted.In terms of investigation procedures, a combined investigation system should be established, and the briber exempted from punishment should go through judicial review procedures to ensure the symmetry of “investigation” and the asymmetry of “treatment”.

The identification of claim-based norms is of great significance for the analysis of cases and the writing of documents, the proof of facts in cases and the distribution of the burden of proof, the development of civil law doctrine and the improvement of legislation.Its significance is not limited to a particular method of case analysis or genre of case analysis report writing.In civil adjudication, a distinction should be made between claim-based norms and non-claim-based norms, as well as between semi-claim-based norms and special claim-based norms.There are some typical expressions of claim-based norms in the Civil Code, but it is incorrect to judge whether a provision is a claim-based norm only by whether it adopts a typical syntax, which can only be used as an important clue for searching and a preliminary basis for argumentation.What can be judged by the syntax is mainly ‘claim according to law’ or ‘assume according to law’ or ‘according to law’, etc., and the provisions adopting such syntax are not claim-based norms.In addition to the syntax of the provisions, in the identification of claim-based norms, it is necessary to pay attention to the connection between the provisions, and it is necessary to explore the value judgement conclusion of the legislatwre in the process of the legislative history, and it is incorrect to take the purpose of the norms as the core reason for judgement regardless of the legislative history.

In the construction of data property rights, the independent status of the object of data property rights has not yet been fully proved.The object of data property right is the data property under identifiable control, existing in digital form and aggregated form, and realizing its basic value by producing useful information.The formal elements of the data are decisive, and symbolic control is the core basis for delimiting the boundaries of the object, the establishment and the scope of exclusive protection of the data property right.The difference between data property and physical object is mainly “intangible or tangible”,“non-competitive or competitive”.The difference between data property and intellectual property is mainly “form-prescriptive or form-unqualified”,“content-unqualified or content-prescriptive”, and “form element is decisive or content element is decisive”.Based on the difference between data and physical objects, data property rights should not be copied from the property rights system in terms of holding issues, effectiveness of data property rights and data attachment.Based on the difference between data and intellectual property, data property rights should be centered on symbolic control in the identification of objects and the design of rights content, and should not be copied from the content control model of intellectual property rights.

The provisions of Article 114, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 399, Paragraph 5 of the Civil Code, among others, prohibit the disposal of seized property by means of transfer, mortgage, and other methods, which is known as the prohibition on disposal of seized property.To clarify the civil consequences of disposing of seized property, it is necessary to precisely define the prohibition on disposal of seized property under the guidance of legal order consistency.This provision is not a contractual prohibition, and a contract with seized property as its object is not invalid.This provision is not a public interest-based prohibition, and it will not lead to the impossibility of contract performance.This provision is not a disposal authority restriction, and the person being seized does not have no authority to dispose of the seized property.This provision is a private interest-based prohibition, and unless the counterparty is in good faith, the result of disposing of seized property shall not be asserted against the applicant for seizure, within the limits of damaging the applicant's interests.

Whether media exposure for rights protection constitutes extortion cannot be generalized.If the perpetrator of the demand and their own losses directly related to the amount of the claim does not exceed the general concept of social acceptance of the scope, and limits of the exposure of the behavior can be evaluated as a strategy to defend the rights of the overall, it belongs to legitimate rights protection.However, if the act of exposure is used as a means to seek improper benefits far beyond the basis of the actor's rights and exceeds the scope and limit recognized by the general social concept, then the behavior is extortion.In judging whether the claim behavior beyond the general concept of social judgment, in addition to considering whether the perpetrator has the basis of the right, what must consider are the content of the rights defended, the way of infringement, the target audience, the attitude adopted in response to the perpetrator's claim requirements, the difficulty of the rights protection behavior, and the frequency of infringement occurrence.In situations where high-risk online media exposure is used as a means to demand compensation far exceeding the basis for the actor's rights protection, it is not a legitimate defense of rights, but rather an extortion.

Adherence to a correct view of human rights is a basic prerequisite for the modernization of judicial protection of human rights.The view of human rights protection in criminal justice in China, through developments in the field of human rights protection in criminal justice since the new era, is not only an important part of the correct view of human rights, but also an important theoretical support for the construction and improvement of China's human rights protection system in criminal justice, which should be consistently upheld and developed.China's view of human rights protection in criminal justice has given birth to a set of practical logics for modernizing human rights protection in criminal justice with very local characteristics: leading synergistic governance through leadership of the Communist Party of China, laying down the direction of development through criminal policy, constructing a specific system through legislative reform, and realizing the functioning of the system through a balance of values.On this basis, the modernization of human rights protection in criminal justice in China has made historic achievements that show Chinese style and manner, and manifest the Chinese model.However, with the profound transformation of social contradictions, the rapid development of the rule of law in relation to foreign countries, the unique needs of misdemeanour governance, and the wide application of digital technology in criminal justice, the modernization of China's criminal justice human rights protection is still faced with a series of new risks and challenges, and it remains an unfinished reform project.In the process of striving to promote Chinese path to modernization, in order to fully realize the modernization of human rights protection in China's criminal justice, a systematic response programmatic should be put forward from the dimensions of firming ideological orientation, strengthening theoretical supply, perfecting institutional construction and optimizing practical operation.

The employee director system is a crucial component of corporate governance mechanisms in China, but in practice, it is often “hollowed out” and fails to perform its intended role.The key reason lies in the absence of a fiduciary duty framework that aligns with the dual identity of employee directors.Traditional corporate law mandates that directors' fiduciary duties are solely oriented toward corporate interests, requiring employee directors to adhere to the same fiduciary duties as ordinary directors.When employee interests conflict with corporate interests, they are expected to prioritize corporate interests.This effectively renders employee directors nominally “employees” but substantively only “directors.” The fiduciary duties of employee directors have a dual structure: they should fulfill duties of loyalty and diligence not only to the company but also to the employees.As “employee representatives” among board members, employee directors possess the legal effect of representing employee interests under the Company Law.When safeguarding employee interests, they should not only exercise “soft powers” such as voicing opinions and making suggestions but also exercise “hard powers” by voting to represent employee interests.To achieve coordinated realization of the dual structure of fiduciary duties of employee directors, reasonable rules for the exercise of their voting rights should be established, distinguishing between situations where they vote according to instructions from the employee representative assembly and where they vote autonomously.Additionally, a “Duty Judgment Rule for Employee Directors” should be constructed as a method for assessing their diligence and responsibility.

《法学家》2025年第2期目录(总第209期)
专题：深入学习贯彻党的二十届三中全会精神
中国式现代化进程中的刑事司法人权保障 姚 莉 (1)

主题研讨一：建构中国自主的法学知识体系
共建“一带一路”倡议下的“超合作国际法” 徐崇利 (15)
晚清国际法思想中的自然法想象:法学知识的跨国交流及其本土建构 吴景键 (27)

主题研讨二：数字法学研究的多维视角
行政法治的数智化法理 齐延平 (40)
数据确权的宪法之维 程 迈 (54)
企业数据担保融资的法律适用 程 乐 (67)

专　论
法人对外为法律行为之机制论纲——若干基本概念的梳理 张双根 (81)
公共性视角下平台协议的法律规制研究 马 辉 (98)
论帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的规范属性 敬力嘉 (116)

视　点
商刑交叉案件程序处理的实践困境与适用规则 刘艳红 (131)
人机共驾接管失败时安全员的过失责任——从信赖原则的适用切入 杨 宁 (145)
论公平责任在文体自甘冒险中的回归 李洪健 (160)

评　注
《民法典》第1195条(“通知——删除”规则)评注 王 滢 (175)

Based on Article 170, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Contract Code clearly stipulates that the act of exceeding authority by the staff of legal persons and unincorporated organizations can be subject to apparent agency.Article 21, paragraph 2, provides for a number of circumstances beyond the scope of its competence, including matters that do not normally fall under its competence.On the contrary, for matters that would normally be dealt with under his or her authority, even if the staff member exceeded his or her authority, the apparent agency rule would almost necessarily apply because of the appearance of the authority and the heavier burden of proof of the principal in article 21, paragraph 3.In practice, for apparent agency beyond the scope of authority, we should effectively distinguish the appearance of authority and the appearance of agency power.On the one hand, it is necessary to examine whether the counterpart's trust is reasonable by combining the appearance of agency power and abnormal transaction factors.On the other hand, it is also necessary to consider the liability of the principal, which can not only avoid the risk of staff overreach that the commercial organization cannot prevent, but also can be understood as excluding the contractual liability of the commercial organization when the counterpart fails to fulfill the necessary duty of care.

Enterprise data-secured financing involves two methods: data rights pledge loans and data asset mortgage loans.Data rights pledge loan is a way for enterprises to exchange the value of data property rights for bank financing.Data asset mortgage loan focuses on the economic value and liquidity of data, allowing for non-transfer of possession while balancing the repayment needs of the mortgagee and the data utilization needs of the mortgagor.Data guarantees should rely on registration as a validity condition, currently achievable through mutual recognition among various data trading platforms, enabling rights publicity and ownership inquiries.The amount of data financing loan is influenced by the spot price p, total collateral q, and collateral rate α.Given the volatility of p, data valuation should reflect the value range of data across multiple prioritized application scenarios, with valuation agencies highlighting the risks of value fluctuation.To prevent depreciation of collateralized data due to time sensitivity, a dynamic data pledge approach is recommended, allowing the pledgor to utilize and update the data during the pledge period, representing a superior option for data financing.

The construction of a national unified market must take fair competition as a necessary condition and important content.The establishment and implementation of a fair competition review system is an indispensable policy tool and basic system supply for the construction of a national unified large market.Since the establishment and implementation of the fair competition review system in China more than eight years ago, it has played a very positive role in promoting fair competition in the market, optimizing the business environment, and building a unified national market, but it also faces many difficulties and challenges in the implementation.Under the background of building a national unified large market, China's fair competition review system needs to be constantly improved.At present, it is necessary to further strengthen its rigid constraint mechanism, but also to establish and improve its positive incentive mechanism and make the two mechanisms coordinate and cooperate with each other, so as to effectively prevent improper market intervention behavior, safeguard and promote the construction of a national unified large market.

While the exofficio addition of party, which is based on and applies the same criteria with compulsory joinder, should be certaint and consistent, in judicial practice there have been diversified rules for discretionary addition, one-way addition and even additions of third party.Widespread rules (as judicial interpretation) of exofficio addition of party can be divided into three levels: substantive addition of joinder, which is in line with the need to jointly exercise rights or undertake obligations under substantive law, procedural addition of joinder, which is aimed at fact-finding and enforcement of judgment in judicial practice, and addition of third-party.These rules can further be categorized into two types: substantive-type addition and procedural-type addition.Substantive-type addition really corresponds to the compulsory joinder, the omission of the parties in the to the second trial or retrial leads to revocation; procedural-type addition can make the proceedings more smoothly, but the outsiders not participating in the litigation does not affect the standing requirement of the parties.The parties themselves can consider the efficiency and the effectiveness of litigation, so procedural-type addition can be transformed into the addition of party through interpretation.

Data registration is the act by which data rights holder records and disclose the data property rights status.It is a key section in the construction of the data market.Although the data content changes, the data property rights can be specifically stated, which has the ability to be registered.Most of current registration is to match supply and demand, which cannot play a role in reducing the rights identification cost and assisting circulation supervision.The construction of data property rights registration system shall instead focus on rights registration based on the substantive review, and be divided into initial registration and transferring registration.Initial registration has the effect of presumption of rights and the transferring registration exerts the effect of rights publicity and credibility.Although registration is not a requirement for the acquisition and alternation of data property rights, it should be given a countervailing effect through legislation.It can reduce the publicizing cost in exclusive transactions and the verifying cost of third parties.

The element of error of cognition in the crime of fraud not only confirms the causal relationship between deceptive acts and the victim's property disposition but also serves to limit the scope of establishment of the crime.Error of cognition is not merely ignorance of facts; rather, it refers to a discrepancy between subjective perception and objective reality, arising from deception by others and directed toward property transfer (and thus property damage), occurring in individuals capable of proper cognition.Even when the property disposer harbors doubts, an error of cognition can still be affirmed.Indifference to fraudulent claims does not constitute an exception.When there is a divergence in cognition between the property disposer and the bearer of property damage, the critical issue is whether the disposer themselves developed an error of cognition.In cases where an assistant, due to specialized knowledge or obligations to provide professional support to the victim, possesses expertise, such professional cognition should be attributed to the victim.The error of cognition sufficient to invalidate the intent to dispose in the crime of fraud is neither a mere error in motive nor strictly limited to errors related to the legal interests protected by the crime.Instead, it signifies that the property disposer has lost free will in making the disposition.Whether free will is lost should be determined through objective judgment.

The intellectual "emergence" of generative artificial intelligence has been stimulated by big data, but it has also intensified the challenges of privacy and personal information protection in the digital age.The integration of algorithms and big data had made the data processing of generative artificial intelligence significantly different from traditional network services.The existing fundamental theories and relevant rules of personal information protection are difficult to apply effectively within the realm of generative artificial intelligence, failing to provide reasonable protection for users' information rights along with other personal and property rights.Moreover, they are unable to effectively curb other social risks arising from illegal data processing.The personal information protection rules for the AI era need to prioritize risk prevention and control, using coercive power of the state to constrain the data processing activities of generative artificial intelligence designers, developers, and providers.Furthermore, it is necessary to improve the rules for information acquisition, usage, storage, circulation and remedies.

The study of claim facilitates the conceptualization of the administrative law system, which is centered on administrative legal relations.Furthermore, it serves as a prerequisite for the development of the review model of claims in administrative litigation.To this end, it is necessary to clarify the connotation and system of the claim.The claim in administrative law is defined as the inherent power of public right, representing the most significant form of right in administrative legal relations.It can more clearly show “who can according to which legal norms, to whom, claim what”.This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal relationship.The system of claims in administrative law is comprised of two distinct categories: the substantive claim, which occupies a central position, and the procedural claim, which is in the supplementary position.The substantive claim can be further distinguished into three distinct categories on the basis of the volitional element of the right.The defensive claims arising from a negative position infringed by the State; the protective claims arising from a negative position infringed by a non-State, and the beneficial claims based on a positive position.The procedural claim can be further subdivided into procedural participation claims and flawless discretion claims, the former supports the realization of substantive claims, and the latter serves as a foundation for substantive claims.In the future, the system of claims can be used to further refine the constituent elements of each type of claim, which will feed the practice of administrative litigation, especially the litigation of performance.

In the digital age, to meet the new demands of handling criminal cases, public security organs, procuratoratorates, and courts have actively promoted digital justice practices, which have enhanced the quality and efficiency of case handling.However, these practices have also introduced certain issues that need to be addressed through revision of the Criminal Procedure Law.The regulation of digital justice practices in the Criminal Procedure Law should adopt a model of “principle-based requirements+key regulations.” According to this model, three principle-based requirements should be established for regulating digital justice practices in the Criminal Procedure Law: emphasizing the protection of rights, upholding equality between prosecution and defense, and reasonably defining the relationship between case-handling personnel and digital tools.Furthermore, key issues such as digital evidence collection, data processing, and AI-assisted case handling should be the focus of regulation.Finally, the amendment and improvement of the Criminal Procedure Law should be carried out from three perspectives: reasonably introducing new rights, significantly strengthening the defense, and achieving the limitation of public power through data security protection.Seizing the opportunity to regulate digital justice practices during the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law can effectively mitigate the negative effects brought about by such practices and ensure their smooth implementation within the framework of the rule of law.