| 1,136 | 14 | 246 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
随着全球数据跨境流动的深入推进，各国在个人数据保护领域的域外管辖实践逐渐增多。合理性原则可作为国际层面协调各国解决域外管辖冲突的重要理论和方法论指导。立足于既有理论与实践，合理性原则可结构化阐释为形式上的可预见性要素和实质上的利益衡量要素。可预见性要素包括密切性和客观性标准，要求域外立法管辖的连结点符合密切性和客观性要求。利益衡量要素可分为直接和间接利益衡量，要求一国执法或司法机关在个案中衡量各连结点管辖国利益强弱，遵从更强利益管辖国管辖。直接利益衡量下，管辖利益强弱次序排列大致为数据控制者所在地、数据主体所在地、数据处理行为地与数据来源地。间接利益衡量作为直接利益衡量位序排列的纠正机制而存在，促进实质正义的实现。
Abstract：With the deepening of cross-border data flows worldwide, the practices of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the field of personal data protection has gradually increased. The reasonableness principle can be used as an important theoretical and methodological guide for coordinating countries to resolve conflicts over extraterritorial jurisdiction from the international perspective. Based on the existing theories and practices, the reasonableness principle can be structured into the element of foreseeability at the formal level and the element of interest measurement at the substantive level. The element of foreseeability, including the criteria of closeness and objectivity, requires the connection points under the jurisdiction of extraterritorial legislation meet the requirements of closeness and objectivity. The element of interest measurement can be divided into direct and indirect interest measurement. The interest measurement requires the authorities of the state to weigh the interests of the states who exercise the extraterritorial jurisdiction case by case, and to comply with the jurisdiction of the countries with stronger interests. Under the direct interest measurement, the order of strong-weak of jurisdictional interests is the place of data controller, the place of data subject, the place of data processing and the place of data source. Indirect interest measurement exists as a corrective mechanism of the ranking of direct interest measurement, and promotes the realization of substantive justice.
(1)See William S.Dodge,Jurisdictional Reasonableness under Customary International Law:The Approach of the Restatement (Fourth) of US Foreign Relations Law,62 Questions of International Law 5 (2019).
(2)See Cedric Ryngaert,Jurisdiction in International Law,Oxford University Press,2015,p.184.
(3)See William S.Dodge,Jurisdictional Reasonableness under Customary International Law:The Approach of the Restatement (Fourth) of US Foreign Relations Law,62 Questions of International Law 5 (2019).
(4)参见徐崇利:《美国及其他西方国家经济立法域外适用的理论与实践评判》,载《厦门大学法律评论》第1卷,厦门大学出版社2001年版,第262页。
(5)See Cedric Ryngaert,Jurisdiction in International Law,Oxford University Press,2015,p.172.
(6)See Michael A.Geist,Is There a There There-Towards Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction,16 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1345,1356 (2001).
(7)See Krzystof Zalucki,Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in International Law,17 International Community Law Review 403,409-410 (2015).
(8)See James Crawford,Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law,Oxford University Press,2019,p.441.
(9)参见汤诤:《域外立法管辖权的第三条路径》,载《当代法学》2022年第3期。
(10)参见蒋新苗:《国际私法本体论》,法律出版社2021年版,第501页。
(11)礼让的概念具有模糊性,不具备法律所要求的确定性和可预见性,带有过多自由裁量甚至政治判断的色彩。与礼让原则一样,“利益”一词的含义过于政治化和宽泛化,无法从中推导出明确、可预测的规则以缓和管辖权冲突。利益平衡原则在实践中不具备可操作性,且在传统的国际公法渊源中找不到利益平衡理论的支撑。See Cedric Ryngaert,Jurisdiction in International Law,Oxford University Press,2015,p.172;Andreas F.Lowenfeld,Antitrust,Interest Analysis,and the New Conflict of Laws,95 Harvard Law Review 1976,1984 (1982);F.A.Mann,The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years,Martinus Nijhoff,1984,p.20.
(12)See Lilian Mitrou,The General Data Protection Regulation:A Law for the Digital Age?,in Tatiana Eleni Synodinou,Philippe Jougleux,Christiana Markou & Thalia Prastitou,eds.,EU Internet Law:Regulation and Enforcement,Springer,2017,p.32;蒋小红:《欧盟法的域外适用:价值目标、生成路径和自我限制》,载《国际法研究》2022年第6期。
(13)See Roger O'keefe,Universal Jurisdiction:Clarifying the Basic Concept,2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 735,739 (2004).
(14)参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第一卷第一分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第388页。
(15)See Michael Akehurst,Jurisdiction in International Law,46 British Year Book of International Law 145,154 (1972-1973).
(16)See United States v.Aluminum Co.of America,148 F.2d 416,444(2d Cir.1945).
(17)See Austen Parrish,The Effects Test:Extraterritoriality's Fifth Business,61 Vanderbilt Law Review 1455,1473 (2008).
(18)参见宋晓:《域外管辖的体系构造:立法管辖与司法管辖之界分》,载《法学研究》2021年第3期。
(19)See Austen Parrish,The Effects Test:Extraterritoriality's Fifth Business,61 Vanderbilt Law Review 1455(2008).
(20)See Thomas Schultz,Carving up the Internet:Jurisdiction,Legal Orders,and the Private/Public International Law Interface,19 European Journal of International Law 799,814-815 (2008).
(21)参见张华:《网络空间适用禁止使用武力原则的法律路径》,载《中国法学》2022年第2期。
(22)See UEJF et LICRA v.Yahoo! Inc.et Yahoo France,T.G.I.Paris,May 22,2000,N' RG:00/05308.
(23)See Zippo Manufacturing Co.v.Zippo Dot Corn,Inc,952 F.Supp.1119,1126 (W.D.Pa.1997).
(24)See Michael A.Geist,Is There a There There-Towards Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction,16 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1345(2001).
(25)针对性标准来源于美国冲突法规则,被广泛适用于媒体和互联网类案件,并被确立为成文法律规则。See Julia H?rnle,Internet Jurisdiction:Law and Practice,Oxford University Press,2021,p.261.
(26)See Thomas Schultz,Carving up the Internet:Jurisdiction,Legal Orders,and the Private/Public International Law Interface,19 European Journal of International Law 799(2008).
(27)See Michael A.Geist,Is There a There There-Towards Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction,16 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1345(2001).
(28)See Weltimmo s.r.o.v.Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság,Case C230/14,para.66.
(29)See Paul de Hert & Michal Czerniawski,Expanding the European Data Protection Scope beyond Territory:Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation in Its Wider Context,6 International Data Privacy Law 230,243 (2016).
(30)See Google Spain SL and Google Inc.v.Agencia Espaňola de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González,C-131/12,2014.
(31)参见孙宝云、李艳、齐巍:《网络安全影响政治安全的微观分析——以“剑桥分析”事件为例》,载《保密科学技术》2020年第4期。
(32)参见王燕:《数据法域外适用及其冲突与应对——以欧盟〈通用数据保护条例〉与美国〈澄清域外合法使用数据法〉为例》,载《比较法研究》2023年第1期。
(33)See Christopher Kuner,Data Protection Law and International Jurisdiction on the Internet (Part 2),18 International Journal of Law and Information Technology 227,242 (2010);Bernhard Maier,How Has the Law Attempted to Tackle the Borderless Nature of the Internet?,18 International Journal of Law and Information Technology 142,161 (2010).
(34)See Faye Fangfei Wang,Jurisdiction and Cloud Computing:Further Challenges to Internet Jurisdiction,24 European Business Law Review 589,592-593 (2013).
(35)See UNCTAD,Digital Economy Report 2021 Cross-border Data Flows and Development:for Whom the Data Flow,available at https://unctad.org/webflyer/digital-economy-report-2021,last visited on Sept.29,2023.
(36)See Christopher Kuner,Data Protection Law and International Jurisdiction on the Internet (Part 1),18 International Journal of Law and Information Technology 176,189 (2010).
(37)参见宋晓:《域外管辖的体系构造:立法管辖与司法管辖之界分》,载《法学研究》2021年第3期。
(38)参见江必新、郭锋主编:《〈中华人民共和国个人信息保护法〉条文理解与适用》,人民法院出版社2021年版,第32页。
(39)参见张新新:《个人数据保护法的域外效力研究》,载《国际法学刊》2021年第4期;张哲、齐爱民:《论我国个人信息保护法域外效力制度的构建》,载《重庆大学学报(社会科学版)》2022年第5期。
(40)参见杨洪泉、车佳倩:《个人信息保护法的域外效力》,载《法人》2020年第12期。
(41)参见程啸:《个人信息保护法理解与适用》,中国法制出版社2021年版,第53页。
(42)参见俞胜杰:《〈通用数据保护条例〉中的域外管辖问题研究》,华东政法大学2020年博士学位论文,第116页。
(43)参见肖永平:《提升中国司法的国际公信力:共建“一带一路”的抓手》,载《武大国际法评论》2017年第1期。
(44)马琳:《析德国法院承认中国法院民商事判决第一案》,载《法商研究》2007年第4期,第153页。
[1]在个人数据保护讨论场域下,“个人数据”与“个人信息”实际上无实质性区别。为契合中国法语境,本文在论及中国的部分会选择性使用“个人信息”一词。
基本信息:
DOI：10.16823/j.cnki.10-1281/d.2024.02.004
中图分类号:D922.16;D99
引用信息:
[1]刘业.个人数据保护域外管辖的合理性原则[J].财经法学,2024,No.56(02):52-67.DOI:10.16823/j.cnki.10-1281/d.2024.02.004.
基金信息:
国家社会科学基金青年项目“跨境数据流动风险防范法律规制研究”(23CFX069)的阶段性成果; 国家留学基金的资助
2024-03-15
2024-03-15