《電子技術應用》
您所在的位置:首頁 > 通信與網(wǎng)絡 > 設計應用 > 數(shù)據(jù)“三權分置”的法律表達
數(shù)據(jù)“三權分置”的法律表達
網(wǎng)絡安全與數(shù)據(jù)治理 6期
曹新舒
(西南政法大學民商法學院,重慶401120)
摘要: 數(shù)據(jù)“三權分置”的法律表達過程中,確權主義與行為主義的對立與競爭應逐漸消退,二者主輔關系的認識也應逐漸揚棄。為確保重大改革于法有據(jù),應基于《民法典》第187條建立確權主義與行為主義的位階關系。在此位階關系的認識下,“數(shù)據(jù)資源持有權”的解釋應側(cè)重范圍限縮與客體特定,“數(shù)據(jù)加工使用權”的解釋應側(cè)重基于交換關系的場景限定,“數(shù)據(jù)產(chǎn)品經(jīng)營權”的解釋應側(cè)重“向公法義務接軌”的功能限定。
中圖分類號:D92.8
文獻標識碼:A
DOI:10.19358/j.issn.2097-1788.2023.06.006
引用格式:曹新舒.數(shù)據(jù)“三權分置”的法律表達[J].網(wǎng)絡安全與數(shù)據(jù)治理,2023,42(6):37-41,47.
Legal expression of "separation of three rights" in data
Cao Xinshu
(Civil and Commercial Law School, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing 401120, China)
Abstract: In the process of legal expression of data "separation of three rights", the opposition and competition between property right paradigm and behavior regulation paradigm should gradually fade away, and the understanding of the main and auxiliary relationship between them should also be gradually discarded. In order to ensure that major reforms are wellfounded in law, we should establish the hierarchical relationship between property right paradigm and behavior regulation paradigm based on Article 187 of the Civil Code. Under the understanding of this hierarchical relationship, the interpretation of "the right to hold data resources" should focus on the limitation of scope and the specificity of objects, the interpretation of "the right to use data processing" should focus on the scene limitation based on the exchange relationship, and the interpretation of "the right to operate data products" should focus on the function limitation of "connecting with public law obligations".
Key words : data property right; separation of three rights; property right paradigm; behavior regulation paradigm

0     引言

2022年12月2日,《中共中央 國務院關于構(gòu)建數(shù)據(jù)基礎制度更好發(fā)揮數(shù)據(jù)要素作用的意見》(下稱《意見》)首次提出“建立數(shù)據(jù)資源持有權、數(shù)據(jù)加工使用權、數(shù)據(jù)產(chǎn)品經(jīng)營權等分置的產(chǎn)權運行機制”,可稱為數(shù)據(jù)“三權分置”。其中,“數(shù)據(jù)資源持有權、數(shù)據(jù)加工使用權、數(shù)據(jù)產(chǎn)品經(jīng)營權”(下稱“數(shù)據(jù)三權”)的母項是“產(chǎn)權”,但“產(chǎn)權”是經(jīng)濟學概念,無法直接向法律上的“權利”概念等價轉(zhuǎn)換。因此,數(shù)據(jù)“三權分置”如何得到法律表達即成為難題。

對此,理論界存在兩種對立路徑:一是運用民事權利理論分析“數(shù)據(jù)三權”內(nèi)涵與外延,徑行確認新的法律權利,即“確權主義”;二是認為確認權利不利于實現(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)“三權分置”,應調(diào)動現(xiàn)行法中的義務性規(guī)范規(guī)制某些行為,即“行為主義”。對于確權主義與行為主義何者更利于實現(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)“三權分置”的法律表達,理論界爭鳴不斷,遠未達成共識。

有鑒于此,本文將對比分析確權主義與行為主義,探尋兩種理論對數(shù)據(jù)“三權分置”實現(xiàn)的功能發(fā)揮關系,在此基礎上對“數(shù)據(jù)三權”展開法理闡釋與制度建構(gòu),以期助益數(shù)據(jù)“三權分置”的法律表達。



本文詳細內(nèi)容請下載http://theprogrammingfactory.com/resource/share/2000005371




作者信息:

曹新舒

(西南政法大學民商法學院,重慶401120)


微信圖片_20210517164139.jpg

此內(nèi)容為AET網(wǎng)站原創(chuàng),未經(jīng)授權禁止轉(zhuǎn)載。