|
|
|
| The Basic Principles, Regulation Trend and Future Prospects of Science and Technology Law |
| Chu Meng1,2 |
| (1.Law School, Minzu University of China, Beijing 100081,China;2.Institute of International Intellectual Property of Peking University, Beijing 100871, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Science and technology law, with its issue-oriented characteristics, is prone to a lack of systematism. This problem becomes more obvious with its ever-enlarging research domains and issues and bears the following characteristics: first, the hot spot of research has been changed from biotechnology to dual emphasis on biotechnology and information technology; second, with the market gradually replacing government as the main power for the operation of technological innovation, issues on privatization, ownership and transfer of technological achievements are more and more emphasized; third, researchers are more engaged in searching for a solution to the "man-to-man" and "state-to-state" control problem caused by "technological power". Though new domains and issues enrich the scope of research for science and technology law, they have also made it more difficult to systematize the research, and the systematic construction of science and technology law still has a long way to go.#br#This study delves into legislation and the research of recent years and finds a way towards systematizing science and technology law through the method of induction. The basic principles and regulatory trends of technology legislation are then summarized. "Humanism" is eligible to be the principle of science and technology law. It is manifested in both technological philosophy and the legal system, especially with the rise of "fourth-generation human rights", the enhanced enforcement of intellectual property rights, and more attention paid to safety in the field of technology. From this trend, a paradigm shift towards science and technology law that focuses on "humanity" has come into being and can be subdivided into four major parts: "freedom of scientific research", "incentive for innovation", "safety guarantee" and "sustainable development".#br#Combining humanism with the modernization of governance, the study manifests the consummation of regulation for science and technology law from four aspects. To begin with, the participation of multiple subjects is required in order to enhance the efficiency and democracy of regulation. In the next place, with the increasing power of super-platforms obscuring the distinction between the private and public sectors, the objects of regulation should be enlarged to cover every aspect that may have an adverse effect on people′s freedom. Meanwhile, anti-monopoly laws should play a more active role in regulating enterprises with market power. Furthermore, since there is a need for a "precautionary principle in a strong sense" to face a world filled with risks, the timing of regulation interference should be advanced. Therefore, the establishment of monitoring and early warning systems, the improvement of information disclosure mechanisms, and the requirement of "design compliance" are likely to be reflected in more and more technology legislation. Last but not least, a comprehensive method of regulation, including criminal justice, governance of technology, and regulation based on contexts, should be considered for the refinement of supervision, with dynamic adjustment and extending the authority of legislation as supplements. The aforementioned aspects related to regulation from the latest legislation and research constitute the external representation of the system of science and technology law.#br#The conclusions about science and technology law guided by the principle of "humanism" and its regulatory trend present opportunities for future research. First, future legislative and research efforts should be paid on the relationship between the government and the market, coordinating and balancing these two powers to better serve the goal of science and technology law. Second, future legislative attempts should focus on the balance between safety and human rights. Third, although how the cooperation and competition of different countries in the field of technology may shape future international and national law is still to be seen, the principle of "technology neutrality" is beyond dispute, and following this principle, specific strategies to respond to competition should be considered with an open mind. Finally, the interrelationship between technology and human nature should be further explored.#br#
|
|
Received: 17 November 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 刘剑文,等. 领域法学:社会科学的新思维与法学共同体的新融合[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2019:50-97.
[2] 杨丽娟,宋吉鑫. 走出科技法与知识产权法相互割裂的误区——也论科技法与知识产权法之间的关系[J]. 知识产权,2011,25(7):61-69.
[3] 易继明. 开创科技法学研究的新局面[J]. 社会科学家,2013,38(12):89-96.
[4] 初萌. 知识产权法的人本主义伦理转向——以建构主义的技术观为视角[J]. 科学学研究,2022,40(8):1345-1353.
[5] 安德鲁·芬伯格. 技术体系:理性的社会生活[M]. 上海社会科学院科学技术哲学创新团队,译. 上海:上海科学院出版社,2018:48.
[6] 易继明. 科学伦理与技术理性[C]. 武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2016:48.
[7] 陈清秀.税法总论[M]. 台北:台湾元照出版有限公司,2014:17.
[8] 王艳林. 论科技法的任务[J]. 河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2011,26(2):151-156.
[9] 卡尔·拉伦茨. 法学方法论(全本·第六版)[M]. 黄家镇,译. 北京:商务印书馆,2020:219.
[10] 薛现林. 科技法律制度基本价值原则探讨[J]. 华中科技大学学报(社会科学版),2004,18(5):74-78.
[11] 刘长秋. 论生命科技立法的理念与原则[J]. 法商研究,2007,24(4):55-60.
[12] 阳东辉. 论科技法的理论体系构架——以克服创新市场失灵为目标和纽带[C]//张守文. 经济法研究[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2019:337-356.
[13] 朱涛. 论中国科技法的双重体系及其建构[J]. 科技与法律,2016,28(5):854-866.
[14] 黄欣荣. 现代西方技术哲学[M]. 南昌:江西人民出版社,2011:6-8.
[15] 卡尔·米切姆. 通过技术思考——工程与哲学之间的道路[M]. 陈凡,朱春艳,译. 沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,2008:80-81.
[16] 郭洪水. 技术哲学的范式演进:从马克思到海德格尔[M]. 北京:中国社会科学出版社,2020:51.
[17] 张文显. 新时代的人权法理[J]. 人权,2019,18(3):12-27.
[18] 马长山. 公共政策需要注入“数字人权”价值——强化“数字人权”的权益平衡[N]. 北京日报,2020-09-28(16).
[19] 马长山. 智慧社会背景下的“第四代人权”及其保障[J]. 中国法学,2019,36(5):5-24.
[20] 宋保振. “数字弱势群体”权利及其法治化保障[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2020,38(6):53-64.
[21] 卓泽渊. 法的价值论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2006:463.
[22] 万钢. 科技成果的使用、处置和收益权这些问题在逐步解决[EB/OL].(2017-03-11)[2022-10-22]. http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2017lh/2017-03/11/c_112061072 7.htm.
[23] 张红斌. 回应时代关切 激发创新活力——2020年修正著作权法评述[J]. 中国版权,2020,30(6):13-20.
[24] 习近平. 践行总体国家安全观 维护国家安全和利益[J]. 保密工作,2019,35(10):75-82.
[25] 胡明. 科研合同的功能性规制[J]. 中国社会科学,2020,41(9):80-88.
[26] 陈泉生. 论可持续发展与科技法的调整[J]. 亚太经济,2000,17(5):69-75.
[27] 张静. 社会治理:组织、观念与方法[M]. 北京:商务印书馆,2019:7.
[28] 刘少杰. 网络化时代的社会结构变迁[J]. 学术月刊,2012,56(10):23-30.
[29] 许多奇. Libra:超级平台私权力的本质与监管[J]. 探索与争鸣,2019,35(11):39-46.
[30] 阿里尔·扎拉奇,莫里斯·E·斯图克. 算法的陷阱:超级平台、算法垄断与场景欺骗[M]. 余潇,译. 北京:中信出版集团,2018:323.
[31] 周万里. 《德国反限制竞争法》的第九次修订[J]. 德国研究,2018,33(4):80-88.
[32] 乌尔里希·贝克. 风险社会:新的现代性之路[M]. 张文杰,何博闻,译. 南京:译林出版社,2018:294.
[33] 苏芸芳. 风险预防背景下的外来物种入侵法律规制[J]. 资源开发与市场,2021,37(3):273-280.
[34] 柴瑞娟. 监管沙箱的域外经验及其启示[J]. 法学,2017,62(8):29-36.
[35] 习近平. 全面加强知识产权保护工作 激发创新活力推动构建新发展格局[J]. 求是,2021,64(3):4-8.
[36] 黄震. 监管沙盒的国际探索进展与中国引进优化研究[J]. 金融监管研究,2018,7(4):36-44.
[37] 彭岳. 共享经济的法律规制问题——以互联网专车为例[J]. 行政法学研究,2016,24(1):126-133.
[38] 洪延青. “以管理为基础的规制”——对网络运营者安全保护义务的重构[J]. 环球法律评论,2016,38(4):20-40.
[39] 郑永年,黄彦杰. 制内市场:中国国家主导型政治经济学[M]. 邱道隆,译. 杭州:浙江人民出版社,2021.
[40] 徐培喜. 网络空间全球治理:国际规则的起源、分歧及走向[M]. 北京:社会科学文献出版社,2018:173.
[41] 克里斯多夫·库克里克. 微粒社会:数字化时代的社会模式[M]. 黄昆,夏柯,译. 北京:中信出版集团,2018:149.
|
|
|
|
