The reform of limited subscription system in the new “Company Law” in 2024 seems to be only the rational return of shareholders' capital contribution period, but in fact it is the innovative reconstruction of shareholders capital contribution obligation and responsibility system.When the company is established, the sponsors' responsibility for capital enrichment is limited, which is conducive to encouraging shareholders to invest and start businesses.The introduction of the company law of the shareholder's loss of power mechanism fills the deficiency of the relief of the contract law in which the shareholder's capital contribution commitment is fulfilled.The shareholder who has lost power is liable for the company's differential loss, and the proportional capital contribution liability of other shareholders without fault should be used with caution.The innovation of company law to accelerate the maturity mechanism fills the deficiency of creditor's subrogation.As long as the company cant pay off the debts due, the creditors due have the right to sue the shareholders and get direct compensation.The revision of the company law on the allocation of liability for equity transfer has corrected the imbalance of interests of bona fide equity traders in the civil law debt assumption theory, and the responsibility of the unexpired equity transferor must be judged on a case-by-case basis by distinguishing the formation time of creditor's rights, and the transferee of defective equity transfer responsibility has the right to claim bona fide exemption defense.The direction of judicial interpretation of shareholders' capital contribution responsibility in China should better realize shareholders' limited liability, rather than weaken it.

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.

President Xi Jinping has put forward a series of important expositions on governing the internet in accordance with the law, leading China to embark on a path that aligns with international norms while maintaining Chinese characteristics.These expositions constitute the theory of governing the internet in accordance with the law within Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.It systematically addresses a series of theoretical and practical issues in the new era, including the great significance, basic principles, strategic layout, key tasks, and global mission of governing the internet in accordance with the law.We must adhere to governing the internet in accordance with the law as a fundamental means, establish a comprehensive cyberspace governance system, and ensure the healthy operation of the internet within the orbit of the law.Based on the practice of China's internet development, we should uphold the basic principles of Party leadership, the rule of law in cyberspace for the people, the integration of governing the internet in accordance with the law and nurturing the internet with morality, and promoting development and leading innovation.We should strengthen legislation in the internet field, improve the implementation system of the rule of law in cyberspace, consolidate the foundation of the rule of law in cyberspace, and ensure the healthy development of the internet through good laws and good governance.We should focus on key tasks such as protecting network rights and interests, regulating the digital economy, and safeguarding cybersecurity, and accelerate the process of legalizing cyberspace.All countries should jointly promote the construction of the international rule of law system in the cyber field and work together to build a community with a shared future in cyberspace on the basis of independence, complete equality, and mutual respect.The theory of governing the internet in accordance with the law within Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is the fundamental principle and action guide for governing the internet in accordance with the law in the new era and will surely lead to a higher level of legalization in cyberspace.

With the advent of the artificial intelligence (AI) era, criminal law is urgently required to establish rules for liability attribution in AI-related crimes.Both the criminal liability subject theory and the criminal tool theory are inherently limited, thus necessitating a bridging theory that balances future technological development and current attribution needs.Through the deconstruction of the criminal subject concept, AI systems without criminal responsibility capacity can still qualify as behavioral subjects, creating a bridging behavioral subject theory beyond the two traditional theories.The concept of behavioral subject in China's criminal law system is expandable, and the subject in an act is not necessarily limited to natural persons.Under the social behavior theory, AI behaviors that possess behavioral self-awareness qualify as acts within the meaning of criminal law, thus validating AI's status as a behavioral subject.When AI participates in crimes, liability attribution shall be conducted in accordance with the framework of crime participation.This theory provides a multi-subject foundation for liability attribution.For AI behaviors, the subject behind AI shall bear vicarious liability, and the behavioral subject theory facilitates accurate determination of each subject's responsibility.

The technique of Extracting Common Factors in legislative activities should follow the logic of legislation rather than the logic of mathematical calculations, including three steps of determining the objects to be extracted, carrying out the Extracting Common Factors, and placing the expression of the Common Factors norms and the remaining norms.The objects to be extracted from the Eco-Environmental Code include the basic system in the general provisions and the specific universal norms in the sub-legal provisions.The legislature can either use the conventional inductive extraction method or the deductive extraction method to form the common norms and then carry out norm deduction.The legislature needs to pay attention to the existing norms and the latest norms as far as possible as the basis for the expression of common sense norms, and pay attention to the transformation of policy terms and academic concepts into normative concepts.As for the remaining norms, they should be changed into independent norms, merged into the causal norms or shifted to a different location, depending on the situation.

The close link between the dereliction of duty by state officials and major safety accidents reveals its significant value in theoretical research.When analyzing the causal relationship between acts of malfeasance and resulting harm, traditional doctrines exhibit limitations, often failing to transcend the attributional level of the causal process.The stance of moderated outcome attribution and remote cause accountability fully acknowledges the particularities of malfeasance, yet it has not provided convincing answers as to why the standards of attribution need to be lowered and to what extent they should be reduced.The failure of public officials to fulfill their supervisory duties should be interpreted as an act of contributory negligence, with its illegality being subordinate to the illegal activities of the supervised party.When the derelict behavior of public officials objectively plays a role in promoting or inducing illegal activities, the illegality of the outcome can be affirmed, thereby achieving a moderated attribution of outcomes and remote cause accountability.The crime of supervisory malfeasance exhibits independence at the level of illegal conduct, and the focus of illegality judgment should shift from the outcome to the act itself, necessitating the use of key elements such as the possibility of foresight to accurately define the scope of the duty of care.In light of the social roles and performance logic of state officials in the supervision and management of work safety, the specific scenarios of the duty of care can be categorized into three types: conducting special rectification activities, routine risk inspection, and responding to public reports.In each scenario, the content of the duty of care and the standards for determining its violation differ.

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.

Business ethics is the cornerstone of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.On an international scale, business ethics has undergone a transformation from empirical standards to functional standards, from a subjective morality of decent conduct to an objective morality of freedom and efficiency, and from a competitor-oriented to a social interest-oriented perspective.Its substance is constantly being renewed and reconstructed, but the framework of “business ethics” itself is generally retained.In China, the concept of business ethics within the Anti-Unfair Competition Law has evolved from a generalized secular morality to a market-specific business ethic; from an empirical standard represented by recognized norms of conduct to a functional standard aimed at preventing market competition distortion; and from a paradigm prioritizing business operators to one prioritizing the order of market competition.The substance and standards of business ethics are continuously shaped, yet its foundational role remains unchanged.    In the interplay of multiple concepts and values, the shaping of the substance and standards of business ethics must balance both empirical and functional standards, giving priority to functional standards unless there is a higher-order ethical demand.Under the diversification of legal interest protection, priority is given to maintaining the order of market competition.When judging the legitimacy of competitive acts according to business ethics, harm to the rights and interests of operators or consumers is typically taken as prima facie evidence.The process should emphasize the value goals of freedom of competition and market efficiency, ultimately using the distortion of market competition as the fundamental criterion.

A provision in a divorce settlement agreement regarding transfer of parental property to the child constitutes a relationship between promisor and stipulator of the third-party-beneficiary contract.The relationship between the stipulator and the third party is an ordinary gift, either a gift from one single parent to the child, or separate gifts from each parent to the child.When the property transfer agreement qualifies as a true third-party-beneficiary contract, as it is difficult for the child to enforce claims against the parent as stipulator, the child's position in the relationship between promisor and stipulator should be strengthened.Restrictions should be imposed on the right of the parent as stipulator to rescind the contract, based on kinds of non-performance, legal capacity to act of child and a comparison of the child's position before and after rescission.The parent as promisor is not entitled to exercise the right of rescission.After rescission, the child may claim damages in lieu of performance from the parent as promisor.Furthermore, consensual rescission by both parents can only be effective with the child's consent.If only one parent is obligated to transfer the property, he cannot raise the defense of simultaneous performance arising from the relationship between parents against the child's claim for performance.

As the predominant form of unfair competition acts, confusion acts have been prioritized in the 2017 and 2025 revisions of China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL), with ongoing refinements to the legal positioning and substantive content.Through successive legislative revisions, the confusion acts clause has evolved from fragmented to unified regulations, expanded from passing off to market confusion acts, and transitioned from closed to open normative frameworks.This progression has established an institutional framework and legal positioning that regulates all confusion acts, takes market confusion as the fundamental element, and combines openness and exclusivity.The confusion acts clause is not limited to the confusion of commercial signs, but should also include any other confusion act to form a closed loop of territorial legal regulation, and should exclude the recognition of similar act according to general terms, thus presenting the legal characteristics of “per se illegality”, territoriality and exclusivity.Under the different modes of competition freedom and competition fairness, the application of Article 7 of the AUCL should uphold the strong constraint of market confusion, choose the policy objectives and value orientation of competition freedom, and prevent the inappropriate expansion of the protection scope of commercial sings or related commercial achievements based on the general concept of fair competition such as “free riding” and “getting something for nothing”.

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.

“Effectiveness” constitutes the core competitiveness of institutional design.Resolving disputes through direct confrontation is fundamental to enhancing the effectiveness of administrative reconsideration and intrinsically necessary for the substantive resolution of administrative disputes.In this regard, substantializing reconsideration hearings is key to enhancing administrative reconsideration's substantive dispute resolution capacity and establishing it as the primary dispute resolution mechanism.From the perspective of jurisprudence, the substantialization of reconsideration hearings is underpinned by three core elements: the Anwesenheit (procedural presence) of the process, the Dasein (functional immediacy) of the procedure, and the exclusivity of records.Anwesenheit means that reconsideration adjudicators and involved parties participate personally in the entire hearing process, prohibiting both absence and ex parte communications; Dasein requires that fact-finding, evidence evaluation, reasoning and issue resolution occur during the hearing process; the exclusivity of case records means that administrative reconsideration decisions be based solely on hearing-recorded facts and evidence, while un-presented facts cannot be used.

The 2023 Company Law of the People's Republic of China attempts to strengthen the legal status of the registry of shareholders in equity changes, especially the statement in Article 86 (2) that “the assignee may assert shareholder rights against the company from the time it is recorded in the registry of shareholders”, which has sparked heated discussions.However, whether from the perspective of the regulatory system or judicial practice, the registry of shareholders should not have a right-setting nature.Although the registry of shareholders does not have the function of right-setting, it should indeed be regarded as the primary certification document in the context of organizational law.Compared to other documents such as capital contribution certificates, company registrations, and articles of association, the registry of shareholders has stronger specificity in handling the relationships between companies and shareholders, as well as between shareholders themselves.The registry of shareholders can also play a more crucial role in optimizing corporate governance and protecting shareholder rights and interests.In order to strengthen the legal status of the registry of shareholders, the rules of the registry of shareholders need to be further improved in terms of the procedural requirements for production and preparation, the legal consequences of failure to prepare in accordance with the law, and the remedies for defective records.

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.

Legal dogmatics (Rechtsdogmatik) is a distinctive theoretical paradigm in German jurisprudence, having evolved through embryonic, formative, mature, and developmental stages.Within the German legal tradition, legal dogmatics constitutes an independent discipline distinct from legal philosophy, sociology of law, and legal history, fulfilling unique functions and serving as a distinct methodological tool.While German legal dogmatics offers valuable insights for China's legal scholarship, its deep roots in Germany's historical and cultural traditions make full transplantation into the Chinese context untenable.Moreover, the term “legal dogmatics” is potentially misleading, its content inherently limited, and its methodology overly insular.To overcome these limitations, it is imperative to construct China's autonomous legal hermeneutic system.Legal hermeneutics primarily serves legislative and judicial purposes, and its systematic development must adhere to principles of autonomy, practicality, coherence, openness, and consensus.The establishment of China's legal hermeneutic system represents a critical component in building an autonomous knowledge framework for Chinese jurisprudence.

The primary sources of training data for large language models are publicly available data on the internet.Developers typically collect these data on a large scale through web crawling and aggregation of open-source datasets.However, as the protection of data property rights becomes increasingly reinforced, the legitimacy of this approach faces growing legal challenges.The large number of data rightsholders and the difficulty in tracing data usage significantly increase transaction costs, making it impractical for developers to obtain individual licenses through market mechanisms to ensure lawful use of training data.In this context of market failure, permitting the fair use of data for training large language models can increase social welfare and generally does not harm the market interests of data rightsholders.Alternatives such as collective management or statutory licensing offer limited benefits to rightsholders while imposing higher institutional costs and potentially hindering the development of large language models in China.Therefore, a fair use for training data should be established to provide legal certainty for technological innovation.In terms of rule design, fair use should be limited to publicly available data, be solely for the purpose of pretraining, include data processing methods involved in training, and allow data rightsholders to opt out through technical measures.

In the era of conventional artificial intelligence, relevant technologies cannot create or alter the right holder of the right to citizens' privacy, but may give rise to novel legal interests of privacy such as “user behavior data profiles”.In the era of artificial narrow intelligence, the collection, processing, and reuse of personal information by generative AI are continually compressing the space in which citizens exercise their privacy rights.Citizens' privacy-control rights may shift from “notice-and-choice” to “default-and-accept”.Generative AI's data-processing capabilities can transform large volumes of low-sensitivity information into identifiable and then derivative privacy data through large-model inference.The super information-processing capability of artificial general intelligence's (AGI) robots may raise fundamental questions about the continuity of citizens' privacy rights.Current criminal law contains no standalone offense specifically targeting serious invasions of citizens' privacy rights; instead, it affords indirect protection by folding citizens' privacy rights under other personal-rights or social-management-orders provisions.There is still a common confusion in criminal law theory and judicial practice between citizens' privacy, personal information, and personal data.Chinese criminal law should add the crime of infringing citizens' privacy rights, establishing a regime of parallel direct and indirect criminal protection for citizens' privacy rights.The law needs to further clarify the standards for imposing management-negligence liability on platforms and technology providers.

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.

The essence of legal dogmatics lies in systematically subsuming individual cases into fundamental rules and principles based on existing law.Germany has developed a refined intermediate system positioned between case adjudication and legal rules, as well as between basic rules and fundamental principles.This sophisticated system renders “questions of justice operable”, particularly in routine case adjudication, where practical dogmatics significantly streamlines judicial work, enhances efficiency, and ensures legal certainty.Notably, this system serves both stability and innovation functions.Savigny's interpretive methodology constitutes the foundational approach for all textual sciences.Both systematic and historical interpretations are capable of accommodating fundamental legal theories.The subsequent debate between subjective and objective interpretation, emerging after Savigny's framework, reveals that objective teleological interpretation is, in essence, illusory.China's Civil Code has cultivated its own distinctive legal dogmatics and hermeneutics.Interpretation functions as the nexus between legal dogmatics and practical legal application, with legal dogmatics playing a foundational role in the interpretive process.Judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People's Court may surpass legislation in precision and responsiveness, thereby making a more substantial contribution to the construction of a refined dogmatic system.

The tort provision of personality property in the Civil Code has not been completely clarified in terms of subjective elements, objects of infringement, scope of claimants, causality and consequences of damages, and it is necessary to reshape the interpretative program of this paragraph based on the accumulated local adjudication experience and wisdom.“Specific object with personal significance” refers to the irreplaceable physical or non-physical objects carrying personality interests for the right holders, but is constrained by the dynamic collaboration of normative elements drawn from adjudicative precedents such as the typical publicity of the personality interests in the specific objects, the degree of love and care for the specific object, the length of time in possession of the specific object, and the necessity of special protection for special subjects.The legislature's amendment of “willfulness or gross negligence” is not sufficiently justified, and a ever-expanding number of judicial cases is breaking through the doctrine of the subjective elements, so the subjective elements of infringement of personality property should be returned to the general position of liability for fault-based torts.The scope of the claimant for moral damages should not be limited to the owners of object, natural persons, or close relatives of natural persons, but should be defined as the holder of the right to the personality interests in personality property.The determination of a tort should not be limited to acts that permanently damage or extinguish a personality property, but should also include acts that do not permanently damage or extinguish a personality property.Drawing on the wisdom of local adjudication, it is appropriate to adopt the view of considerable causal relationship.The determination of “seriousness” of “serious moral damage” should still follow Dynamic System Theory, and should be determined in individual cases through the dynamic weighing of normative elements drawn from statutory law, the opinions of Supreme People's Court and judicial precedents.

Defining, identifying, and legally adjusting the for-profit corporation of public interest can help resolve the controversy surrounding the classification system of legal entities in China's Civil Code.The practice of for-profit corporations of public interest in the fields such as education, healthcare and elderly care have improved the efficiency and quality of China's public interest development.However, the current legal adjustment mechanism has shortcomings such as unclear positioning, mixed basis, missing or unreasonable core rules.We should focus on balancing the commercial and public interest attributes of the for-profit corporations of public interest, construct a normative system consisting of general law and special laws, improve the registration management system by adjusting the functions of the business supervisory departments, comprehensively use private law norms and regulation, standardization, subsidies, tax incentives, financing support and other public law adjustment tools, so as to improve the rights and obligations rules of the for-profit corporations of public interest in core issues such as pricing, distribution and corporate governance.

In the transfer of shares with uncalled capital contributions, the obligation to contribute capital transfers automatically to the transferee with the shares.Given capital maintenance and the mandatory nature of organizational law regarding capital contribution obligations, the transferor is not absolved of liability by transferring the shares, which is the approach more justified than requiring company consent for share transfers.The rationale of risk control establishes the legitimacy and institutional benefits of imposing liability on transferors.This rationale also dictates that such liability should be supplementary rather than joint and several.This framework reconciles capital maintenance with freedom of share transfer.Neither the transferor's bad faith nor the reliance of company creditors constitutes the basis for supplementary liability.These factors are immaterial in application.The transferor's supplementary liability implies that the transferor enjoys a defense of prior execution against the transferee, the specific issues of which may be resolved by reference to the rules governing the defenses available to a general guarantor.The transferor also has the right of recourse.In cases of multiple successive transfers, all prior transferors bear supplementary liability in reverse chronological order based on the same rationale of risk control.
   

Entering the digital economy era, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law needs to respond to the needs of the times and undergo digital transformation through legislative amendments.This round of the second revision of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law actively faces the challenges of digital technology and responds to the actual needs of the development of the digital economy.It is committed to improving digital competition rules.Significant progress has been made in the creation of rules for abuse of relative market power by digital platforms, innovation of rules for unfair competition involving data, expansion of rules for abuse of digital platform autonomy rules, and development of rules for unfair competition involving traditional Internet.Further improving the digital competition rules system is of milestone significance for maintaining fair competition in the digital market and promoting high-quality development of the digital economy, and will play a more important role in the future.

Along with the emergence of a large number of claims for payment, the right to request review mode has also begun to be applied to administrative litigation.Unlike the traditional lawfulness review mode, under the right to request review mode, there is no essential difference between administrative litigation as public law litigation and private law litigation; both deal with disputes over substantive rights between subjects under specific legal relationships.Claims review model of subjective public rights and substantive claims are the basis of substantive law, and substantive law thinking, the generalization of the right of action and the elements of the right at the same time are the conditions of prosecution and the conditions of success as the premise of its application.They not only have been applied to the payment of the lawsuit, but also useful for the revocation of the lawsuit and the confirmation of the lawsuit for the reconstruction of the re-understanding and construction of the same inspiration.However, just like the traditional legitimacy review model, the claim review model also suffers from systemic incoherence, limited application, and challenges over a priori determination of substantive law/procedural law relationships.This also shows that, although the purpose and basic structure of administrative litigation, including revocation, should maintain a certain degree of integration with the norms of substantive law, the litigation system itself is not a univocal deduction from substantive law alone.

Judicial artificial intelligence, especially the birth of the Big Language Model and its possibility of application to judicial practice, seems to eliminate the space for legal methodology in the judicial decision.The fundamental principle of judicial artificial intelligence lies in the prediction (generation) of current data based on the statistical regularities of historical adjudication data, but the information processing of adjudication data is not equivalent to the judicial decision itself, nor is the calculation equivalent to reasoning or argumentation.From the perspective of “desirability”, as long as the nature of judicial decision-making as a kind of reason-giving activity is adhered to, legal methodology should not lose its space.From the perspective of “feasibility”, in the field of fact determination, on one hand, machine algorithms cannot properly construct the facts of the case from the evidence materials due to the limited real cognitive ability and non-response to evaluative space.On the other hand, in the field of legal application, machine algorithms cannot replace creative legal interpretation and its various methods, nor can they carry out real gap-filling and legal amendments.However, the application of corpus linguistics in legal interpretation shows that digital technology has indeed brought changes in the source of information and specific application patterns to legal methodology.In future, algorithms and methods should be mutually reinforced.

Article 1194 of the Civil Code is a general provision on network infringement.The first sentence of this article is an incomplete primary norm, which needs to be applied in conjunction with other articles, especially Articles 1165 and 1167 of the Civil Code.The second sentence of this article is a reference norm, and the specific law it refers to constitutes a special law in conjunction with the general law in the first sentence.The first sentence of this article, together with Article 1165, forms the basis for the right to claim network infringement damages, with six essential elements: network users or network service providers, infringement committed through the use of the network, infringement of others' civil rights and interests, fault, damage, and causation; the first sentence of this article, together with Article 1167, forms the basis for the preventive right to claim compensation for network infringement, without requiring the existence of fault or damage.In terms of legal consequences, the infringed party may claim compensation for losses such as property infringement, personal infringement, and intellectual property infringement; for infringement of personality rights, the infringed party may also request the elimination of effects, restoration of reputation, and an apology; if the infringement continues, the infringed party may also claim cessation of infringement, removal of obstacles, and elimination of danger.

The premise for elucidating the relationship between personal information rights and data property rights lies in clarifying the attribution of property interests in personal data, based on the recognition that personality interests inherently belong to the individual.The property interests in personal data are jointly generated by the data subject and the processor, forming both vertical and horizontal symbiotic relationships.Driven by the “symbiotic mechanism” of personal data property interests, the relationship between the data subject and the data processor should shift from “opposition and competition” to “mutual dependence,” the hierarchy of rights should shift from “absolute priority” to “synchronous generation,” and the regulatory model should shift from “exclusive entitlement” to “governance norms.” Consequently, personal information rights and data property rights constitute two parallel rights, formed by assigning different utilization powers over personal data to the data subject and the processor respectively.Data subjects can manage their personal data property interests through personal information rights, while data processors, by virtue of lawful data processing, enjoy data property rights encompassing possession, use, and operational rights.

《法学家》2025年第4期目录(总第211期)
专题：习近平法治思想的学理阐释
习近平法治思想中的依法治网理论 陈柏峰 (1)

主题研讨一：法教义学之借鉴意义的中德对话
法教义学对中国法律思维的意义 ［德］罗尔夫·施蒂尔纳 (15)
从法教义学迈向法释义学——兼谈中国自主法释义学体系之构建 王利明 (29)

主题研讨二：数字法学研究的多维视角
数据产权登记制度的体系构建 包晓丽 (50)
生成式人工智能背景下的个人信息保护：范式转换与规则完善 叶雄彪 (61)

主题研讨三：请求权的行政法体系之维
行政法上请求权的内涵与体系 程皓楠 (74)
行政诉讼中的请求权审查模式 赵 宏 (87)

视　点
公益性营利法人：理论基础、实践形态与法律调整 冯 辉 (105)
生态环境法典编纂中的提取公因式技术：基本原理和操作方法 曹 炜 (120)
网络行动违反国际义务的损害后果评估 杨 帆 (133)

争　鸣
媒体曝光维权和敲诈勒索的界限 黎 宏 (148)
认缴制变革下的股东出资责任反思 傅 穹 (162)
论职务行为表见代理的适用机理———兼评《合同编通则解释》第21条 李亚超 (177)

The requirement of portrait identifiability is crucial in disputes involving images with “removed facial features,” and its significance has increased with the rise of AI-generated virtual avatars.Existing “holistic assessment” approaches rely heavily on judicial discretion, creating uncertainty and overlooking the need for differentiated identifiability standards that correspond to the distinct legal interests protected by portrait rights.These interests include dignity, identity, and commercial value.The standard of identifiability should therefore vary accordingly: for dignity interests, what should apply is the most permissive standard—identifiability exists if the rights holder himself can recognize the image; for identity interests, the test is whether people familiar with the rights holder can confidently conclude that the image refers to that person alone; and for commercial interests, the strictest standard applies, requiring that the general public, under isolated comparison, can immediately recognize the person depicted.This framework supports a more nuanced and coherent approach to portrait identifiability.

The introduction of the principle of proportionality from administrative law into criminal law theory directly has problems of insufficient interpretative power and practicality, resulting in the error of “one-size-fits-all”, so it is necessary to recreate it in combination with the characteristics of criminal law.Different from the theory for interpreting problems, the theory for solving problems takes legal norms as the main axis and legal practice as the orientation, and is more characterized by legal hermeneutics.China's criminal law theory cannot simply copy the principle of proportionality in administrative law.It is necessary to carry out localization transformation of the three sub-principles of the principle of proportionality to achieve the fundamental transformation of the principle of proportionality from a theory for interpreting problems to a theory for solving problems, and to establish a multi-level, standardized and constitutionally related filtering mechanism within it.Among them, the principle of suitability attaches importance to the judgment of the legitimacy of the purpose and needs to be justified by the theory of legal interests.The principle of necessity advocates the correspondence between the typification of crimes and the individualization of review standards, emphasizing that different standards of leniency, strictness and the most strict review should be adopted for different criminalization legislations based on the distinction between minor crimes, intermediate crimes and serious crimes.The principle of excessive prohibition needs to take basic rights as the substantive value argument and incorporate the ultimate standard of human dignity into the measurement of legal interests.

Legislators, emphasizing the necessity of criminal law intervening in families to prevent abuse, have specifically established the crime of abuse targeting “family members”.However, this approach inevitably overlooks abuse outside the family.The Mu Linhan case reveals loopholes in the protection by the crime of abuse.In judicial practice, the scope of “family members” has been expanded to protect women abused outside the family, which nonetheless violates the principle of legality.Beneath this issue lies the problem of legislative unconstitutionality, manifested in two aspects: insufficient protection and unequal protection.Both “protecting the family” and “protecting women” are state obligations stipulated in the Constitution.They are often mistakenly perceived as conflicting, but in essence, they constitute a concurrence of fundamental rights.Therefore, in accordance with the Constitution, criminal law should establish a progressive structure to cover both intra-family and extra-family abuse.

Since Chinese Criminal Procedure Law lacks provisions governing litigation procedures for unit crimes, and Article 346 of the Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law—which permits units to “reference application” of criminal procedure clauses designed for natural persons—remains ambiguous in scope and boundaries, the protection of legitimate rights and interests of units in criminal proceedings is entirely dependent on those of natural persons.To clarify the legal status of units as subjects in criminal proceedings and maintain the balance between prosecution and defense in unit crime litigation, the Theory of Indirect Liability of Units should serve as the basis for constructing procedural rules for unit crimes.Building on this foundation, it is essential to explore the specificity of the unit defendant in safeguarding rights of units in criminal proceedings compared to natural persons.In accordance with these specificities, efforts must focus on defining evidentiary criteria for proving that units will incentivize criminal acts, developing interrogation methods tailored to units, reforming the system of Units' Representatives in Litigation, and enhancing the system of Units' Right to Defense.

The crime of contract fraud is a purely economic crime, and its legally protected interest is not property rights.The essence of the illegality of contract fraud is that the perpetrator deceives the victim into performing contractual obligations while anticipating his own serious non-performance, thereby undermining the transaction credit embodied in the contract and degrading the market's overall evaluation level of contract performance environment in a country as well as its corresponding function of guaranteeing such performance.Therefore, this article proposes that the legally protected interest of the crime of contract fraud is the credit of transactional contract.Based on this premise, the focus of illegality assessment should shift from “property” to “contractual obligations”, with “anticipated serious non-performance” at its core.The fundamental structure of the crime of contract fraud can be restated as follows: In the process of signing or performing a contract, the perpetrator fabricates or conceals the fact of his anticipated serious non-performance of contractual obligations→the other party develops a mistaken belief regarding the perpetrator's serious non-performance of contractual obligations→the other party performs his own contractual obligations based on this misapprehension→the perpetrator refuses to fulfill his corresponding contractual obligations.The reconstruction of the crime of contract fraud not only clarifies its relationship with the crime of fraud as one of ideal concurrence rather than normative concurrence, but also provides a new framework—that is the “new fundamental structure theory” —to determine whether a contract fraud amounts to the crime of contract fraud, thereby solving the problem of inverse relationship between quantitative degree of crime and criminalization threshold and the demarcation between criminal offense and civil act.

Whether a debtor provides a personal or proprietary guarantee to an external party, the absence of reasonably equivalent consideration renders the transaction detrimental to the debtor's estate.Although the right of recourse acquired by the guarantor after performance may be regarded as a form of consideration, it is patently unreasonable.Consequently, such external guarantees possess the potential to be characterized as fraudulent transfers.When a guarantee is provided during the suspect period preceding bankruptcy, it is presumed that the debtor was insolvent at that time and acted with intent to defraud creditors.Under the principle of objective equivalence, the determination of reasonably equivalent consideration must account for both direct and indirect benefits accruing to the debtor at the time of the transaction.If reasonable consideration is established, the guarantee should not be voidable.In the context of intra-group guarantees among corporate group members, reasonable consideration is deemed present when the primary obligor and the guaranteeing debtor share identical interests.The avoidance of a debtor's external guarantee in bankruptcy proceedings should be contingent upon the counterparty's subjective bad faith.The principle of constructive knowledge shall guide the assessment of such good or bad faith, thereby balancing the need for transactional security with the efficiencies required in bankruptcy administration.

In order to coordinate with the relevant provisions of the Law of Rural Collective Economy Organizations, the Organic Law of Villagers' Committees (Revised Draft, 2025) deleted the relevant provisions on economic functions.However, legislators have not made it clear who should undertake other collective functions other than those listed in the two laws.There are also some problems in the functions of rural collective economic organizations, such as the low level of effectiveness of some legal texts, the unclear relationship between economic functions and other functions, and the lack of specific functional composition.Villagers' committees undertake collective functions at the bottom, which has sufficient theoretical and practical basis.The mode of collective functions allocation is conducive to coordinating the relationship of the functions between the two types of organizations, and also provides an important path for determining the functions of rural collective economic organizations.Combined with the differences between the two types of organizations in subject orientation and main functions, all the economic functions should be allocated to rural collective economic organizations.In the case of limited performance ability and performance conditions, economic functions should be regarded as the main functions of rural collective economic organizations, and other functions should be strictly restricted to ensure the effective realization of economic functions.The legal texts of the functions of rural collective economic organizations should be limited to laws and administrative regulations.Other functions of rural collective economic organizations should be composed of promoting rural governance and developing democratic management functions, as well as five other functions determined by existing laws and administrative regulations.The effective performance of the functions of rural collective economic organizations should adhere to the unified performance of village-level rural collective economic organizations and cooperate with villagers' committees.

State-sponsored cyber operations could amount to violation of international obligations.Existed discussions and states' position papers reveal a current consensus that, to scrutinize state's cyber operation under international law requires a legal assessment of the harmful effects of the conduct in question, which, once meet certain threshold of effects, could be argued as inconsistent with relevant obligations.Based on related jurisprudence in international law and the state-of-the-art understanding of the nature of cyber operations, a legal reasoning framework of “delineation-categorization-synthesization” can be constructed to assess the harmful consequences of an accused state's cyber operation.Causality analysis can help define the appropriate range of outcomes to be considered in legal analysis.By way of typology, the physical and non-physical harms inflicted by cyber operation can be better analyzed.The proposed framework can also be adopted to revisit representative viewpoints on legal thresholds expressed in state position papers and academic discussions.In doing so, it tries to fill in the gap of current literature on cyberspace international law, to clarify or even eliminate divergencies of opposite views, and to enhance the consistency of the wording and concepts in future debate.

Currently, there is an urgent need for theoretical interpretation and reconstruction of the protection paradigm for procedural rights of counterparties in automated administration.The existing theories mainly include “embedded protection theory”,“indiscriminate protection theory”, and “phased protection theory”.The embedded protection theory has the problems of weakening administrative due process and virtualization of new rights, which are due to the erosion of procedural rights by technological governance measures and the technological dependence of procedural rights.The original intention of the “indiscriminate protection theory” is to adhere to the essence of procedural rights and follow the form of procedural consistency, but leads to obvious technical adaptation difficulties and legal norm incompatibility issues.The “phased protection theory” attempts to achieve rights protection through local optimization, but faces the problems of fragmented procedural rights and the replacement of legal logic with technological logic.In view of this, it is necessary to choose and establish a “whole process protection theory” that combines “three-dimensional” and “third-order progression”.Compared to existing theories, the “whole process protection theory” has its unique value and comparative advantages.In the future, systematic protection of procedural rights can be achieved through the establishment of a sound preferential protection mechanism through legislation, the reconstruction of law enforcement systems that focus on procedural rights protection, and the strengthening of administrative litigation remedies.

The typification analysis of judicial documents about implicated offense is aimed at discovering the types of implicated relationships in judicial practice.Implicated offense involved multiple charges and a wide range.The phenomenon of confusion between implicated offense and other forms of crime's number (especially imaginative competition)was relatively common.Judicial interpretation remained an important measure to quell disputes over implicated offense.The type of “means-purpose relationships” accounted for the overwhelming majority, while the type of “cause-result relationships” was rare, which might be due to the misreading of traditional classification.In terms of specific types, there are not only traditional “type of pure implicated relationship”, but also “type of mixed implicated relationship”, and even “type of impure implicated relationship”.The existence of different types of implicated relationships indicated that implicated offense has evolved into an Miscellaneous Provisions, which is a unique feature of implicated offense in the perspective of China's criminal law.

The issue of the legislation on AI currently involves great theoretical controversies.Due to the incomplete transition of legislative concepts, the limited and delayed response of laws to technological advancements, as well as the requirements for novelty and systematicity in unified legislation for emerging technological fields, the timing for formulating a unified “Artificial Intelligence Law” is not yet fully mature.The legislation of artificial intelligence should be based on the new objects subject to law and the corresponding methods followed by it.Thus,“deep learning algorithm” and “human-machine” relationship can be extracted as the two theoretical fulcrums of artificial intelligence law, and the two are closely linked and evolve simultaneously.The regulation of deep learning algorithms is more important in the field of AI than before.At present, the concepts of algorithm transparency, accountability and interpretability have not been well elaborated in a self-consistent theory, and thus it still needs the effective cracking of the algorithm “black box”.The evolving nature of human-machine relationships presents legal uncertainties due to technological advancements.However, when we dispel the illusion of AI's “self-awareness,” it becomes clear that human dominance should govern these interactions.Guided by three fundamental principles-dehumanization, human primacy and safety, the legal framework could be established through mechanisms like human-machine alignment protocols, trust-building frameworks and ethical guidelines.The legislation on AI puts forward urgent requirements for new ideological resources and thinking paradigms, among which the theories such as “computer as a social actor” and “actor network” are worth paying attention to for our reference.

General Secretary Xi Jinping's important expositions on the tasks of judicial system reform constitute not only a rich and logically rigorous theoretical system, but also a practical action guide with clear requirements and powerful driving mechanisms.Regarding the setting of reform tasks, its logical orientation emphasizes adherence to a triple standard: combining goal orientation with problem orientation, combining value orientation with effect orientation, and combining proceeding from China's actual conditions with drawing on the beneficial achievements of human rule of law civilization.In terms of logical relationships, it emphasizes “accurately selecting key areas,”“systematic advancement,” and “integrated construction.” In terms of logical elements, there are five key tasks: improving institutional mechanisms to ensure the independent and impartial exercise of judicial power in accordance with the law, perfecting the operational mechanisms of judicial power, strengthening judicial protection of human rights, enhancing supervision over judicial activities, and improving the ability of judicial professionals to administer justice impartially.In terms of logical mechanisms, it consistently adheres to the objective laws of judicial activities, fully embodying the requirements of unity of power and responsibility, checks on power, openness and impartiality, and respect for procedure.It can be said that the theory of judicial system reform tasks within Xi Jinping's Rule of Law Thought contains rich theoretical originality and strong practical guidance, serving as the fundamental guide for deepening judicial system reform in the new era.