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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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”.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

《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)

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.

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.

Analyzing the evolution and characteristics of Chinese international law thought from a historical perspective is a key component in constructing China's independent knowledge system in international law.During the late Qing period, one notable feature of Chinese international law thought was its prominent natural law orientation, which stood in sharp contrast to the positivist ideas dominant in contemporary Western thought.Existing studies often attribute this to W.A.P.Martin's translation of Wheaton's Elements of International Law.However, these studies have relatively overlooked the more complex historical context underlying late Qing international law thought.Beyond Wheaton's work, the translation and introduction of Theodore Dwight Woolsey's Introduction to the Study of International Law also significantly contributed to the natural law imagination in late Qing international law thought by incorporating Confucian concepts such as xing and li.This natural-law-based approach to international law was further developed through the indigenous construction efforts of late Qing intellectual elites like Guo Songtao and Zeng Jize, gaining even greater influence.The traditional Chinese legal cultural concepts embedded in this thought provide valuable intellectual insights for China as it seeks to reconstruct its subjectivity in international law discourse.

The digitized reconstruction of administrative rule of law will realize a unified technological dominance over traditional administrative powers and the rights of administrative counterparts, but it remains adhering to humanistic jurisprudence.It prohibits breaching neither the humanism-based theory of administrative legal relationship subjects, nor the principles of determining and attributing administrative legal responsibility based on free will.The depersonalization logic inherent in the transition from face-to-face administration to interface administration aligns with the evolutionary trend of the rule of law towards objectifying subjective law enforcement.Through the codification of enforcement norms, the technologization of intermediary elements, and the depersonalization of enforcement scenarios, administrative rule of law achieve a digital twin.Its legitimacy and justification rely on the security and reliability of automated systems, the scientific quantification of administrative discretion, and the social consensus on the algorithmic operation of administrative regulations.Procedural legality and substantive justice are the legal cornerstones for realizing these objectives.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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 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.

Currently, the case of death caused by a failed takeover by a human-machine co-driver is in the spotlight, and there is a controversy between affirmative and negative theories as to whether a safety officer can claim the principle of reliance and not be held liable for negligence even though he or she failed to fulfill the duty to take over.From the affirmative view, human-machine trust is built on the basis that AI trustworthiness-machines have autonomy, agency, and human-centered intentionality, and favors human trust in machines.The application of the principle of reliance to the highly compartmentalized, high-risk human-machine trust is an extension of the organizational model that does not lead to dilution of responsibility, but is more in line with the nature of criminal responsibility, and possesses reasonableness.When the exception to the principle of reliance negates negligence liability, the equivalence of reliance can be specifically judged by using the safety officer, the autopilot system, and the human-machine interaction at different levels of autopilot as objective factors.The safety officer's behavior of failing to fulfill the obligation to take over has an objective illegality, but when he reasonably trusts that the automatic driving system can perform the expected function, he cannot specifically foresee the occurrence of the result, thus the principle of reliance negates negligence in the stage of liability, and plays a role in the allocation of the results of the back-end risk.

The phenomenon of inadequate response of the traditional legal systems to dealing with data ownership issues is due to the novel characteristics of data as a legal object.In the discussion of data ownership, there is a collision of values among different sectoral laws, and traditional legal theories are struggling to fully address the issue of data interest distribution.Facing these challenges, the constitutional law needs to play a role in fixing the deficiencies in the traditional legal system.Moreover, as a highly socialized new factor of production, the design of the legal framework for data utilization cannot be separated from the guidance of the constitutional law.Against the backdrop of market economy of Chinese characteristics, when handling data ownership, various government also involve their own interests.This further underscores the need for the constitutional law to intervene.Data ownership issues simultaneously involve the first and second order consensus in the constitutional law.Different positions in issues of data ownership can find support in the constitutional law's first order consensus system, but resolving the issue requires the full application of second order consensus to balance the demands of various stakeholders, and to establish a mutual possession system which promotes the acquisition and utilization of data.

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.