上海大学学报(社会科学版) ›› 2026, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (5): 29-43.

• • 上一篇    下一篇

回到立法现场:利益衡量视角下数据立法的模式更新

  

  1. 上海市社会科学界联合会 上海市社会科学事业发展研究中心;中国政法大学 数字社会治理研究院
  • 出版日期:2026-09-15 发布日期:2026-09-29
  • 作者简介:
    孙冠豪,上海市社会科学界联合会上海市社会科学事业发展研究中心编辑,中国政法大学数字社会治理研究院研究员,法学博士。研究方向:数字法学、法学方法论。
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金重大项目(24&ZD133)

Returning to the Legislative Scene: Renewing Data Legislation Models from the Perspective of Interest Balancing

  1. Shanghai Social Science Development Research Center, Shanghai Federation of Social Science Associations;

    Digital Social Governance Research Institute, China University of Political Science and Law



  • Online:2026-09-15 Published:2026-09-29

摘要:

当前,我国数据立法沿袭传统部门法的“问题导向”模式难以匹配其技术高速变化的领域特征,因此存在规范冲突化和同质化现象并存、对实践难点回应不够、前瞻性不足等局限。对此,应引入利益衡量理论,通过观察数据立法过程中各种利益主体的交互与博弈,以“回到立法现场”的方式,实现数据立法的范式转型。利益衡量的立法方法论具有三重优势:一是利益的“层次结构”特征可以有效应对数据权利复合性;二是利益的“社会共识”属性有助于填补立法空白;三是利益的稳定性有助于消解立法滞后性。具体而言,基于利益衡量的数据立法应以化解利益冲突为基准、以异质化利益衡量为重心、以适应技术发展为旨归,通过利益分类方法识别数据立法可能涉及的利益衡量,并基于同质化利益与异质化利益衡量重心的不同为其设计差异化的立法路径。

关键词:

Abstract:

Currently, China’s data legislation inherits the“problem-oriented”paradigm of traditional sectoral law, which fails to align with the rapidly evolving technological characteristics of the digital domain. Consequently, it suffers from limitations such as the coexistence of regulatory conflict and homogeneity, inadequate responsiveness to practical bottlenecks, and a lack of foresight. To tackle these challenges, the theory of interest balancing should be introduced. By observing the interaction and bargaining processes among various stakeholders in data lawmaking, and thereby“returning to the legislative scene,”this approach can facilitate a paradigm shift in data legislation. The legislative methodology of interest balancing offers threefold advantages: first, the“hierarchical structure”of interests can effectively cope with the composite nature of data rights; second, the“social consensus”attribute of interests helps mitigate legislative gaps; third, the stability of interests helps defuse legislative lag. Specifically, data legislation based on interest balancing should take the resolution of interest conflicts as its baseline, place its focus on balancing heterogeneous interests, and aim to adapt to technological developments. It should identify the interest balancing patterns potentially involved in data legislation through interest classification, and design differentiated legislative paths tailored to the distinct priorities of balancing homogeneous and heterogeneous interests.

Key words:

中图分类号: