英文摘要

On the Right to Individual Development from the Perspective of People’s Livelihood in the New Era

HU Yuhong

（Human Rights Institute， East China University of Political Science and Law）

Abstract： In today’s society， the right to development is often undervalued or even disparaged due to its nature as a “collective human right，” for it seems to deviate from the fundamental characteristics of human rights when discussing national or ethnic rights. However， while the right to development can refer to the development of a country or nation， it does not mean that this collective right cannot also be an indi‐vidual right. As a new type of human right， the right to development is closely related to individuals’ basic living conditions and legitimate survival status， as well as their ability to realize personal potential and self-worth in society. From the perspective of livelihood， the right to personal development can be divided into three main catego‐ries： fundamental rights， supportive rights， and protective rights.Fundamental rights are essential for personal development. In other words， without these rights， individu‐als cannot nurture their personality or develop their abilities， let alone realize their values on the social stage. The right to education and the right to health are representa‐tive of fundamental rights. The right to education enhances individuals’ internal quali‐ties for development， while the right to health provides medical and health security from the state in terms of lifespan， physical condition， and mental health for personal development.Supportive rights refer to opportunities and platforms provided by the state and society， along with necessary guarantees， enabling individuals to better real‐ize their potential under the support of systems， policies， and laws. Participation rights（rights to participate） and cultural rights （to access cultural properties） are typical examples. The realization of cultural rights requires the state to provide resources and platforms for participation in cultural activities， as well as policies and laws that encourage and protect creativity and innovation. Additionally， cultural rights directly lead to individuals’ ability to enhance themselves and realize their value through autonomous academic creation and technological innovation. Participation rights mean citizens have the right to engage in relevant public affairs， express their opinions， and present their demands， thereby contributing to public decision-making. Widely ranged public participation enhances individuals’ capacity for self-development and provides institutional support for the rational and efficient operation of society. Security rights， centered on the right to social security， provide a safe social environment for individu‐als’ survival， living， and livelihood in society. Only by constructing a complete social security network can a solid institutional foundation and social support be provided for the realization of the right to individual development.

KEY WORDS： right to individual development； right to education； right to health； cultural rights； participation rights； social security rights

The Dual Aspects and Conceptual Reinterpretation of Rights for Digitally Disadvantaged Groups

CHEN Jianping， LIU Haolong

（School of Administrative Law， Southwest University of Political Science and Law； Institute for Comprehensive Governance by Rule of Law， Southwest University of Political Science and Law）

Abstract： In the digital age， significant advancements in digital technology have propelled society into a new era characterized by “totally digitalized and computer‐ized.” While digital technology offers opportunities， it also harbors risks. The urgency of redefining digital rights for the protection of digitally disadvantaged groups is underscored by the fact that the convenience of digital technology may inadvertently trap these groups in difficult living situations， such as being limited by lack of internet access or the skills to purchase essential goods online. Ensuring the healthy develop‐ment of the digital society necessitates this protection， which has become a must of governance.Clarifying the concept of rights for digitally disadvantaged groups is a theoretical prerequisite for their protection. Current regulations and theories provide only preliminary answers to the question of “what constitutes the rights of digitally dis‐advantaged groups，” leaving room for further discussion. Besides， the research employs an “enumerative and saving all” approach to defining these rights， often describing them by using terms like “bundle of rights” or “rights cluster.” While the definition of “saving all” strengthens the comprehensiveness of the concept， it also risks generalizing the definition of rights for digitally disadvantaged groups. The need for a systematic structure within these rights also demonstrates a theoretical dilemma. The theoretical dilemma about the rights of digitally disadvantaged groups arises pri‐marily from challenges in defining the concept， which includes two aspects： the dilemma of the effectiveness and independence of these rights. The dichotomy of facts and values in the legal world provides insight into the theoretical challenges. To address the dilemma， the rights of digitally disadvantaged groups can be reinterpreted from two perspectives： first， at the factual level， these rights have a substantial aspect， limited only by current norms； second， at the value level， these rights embody a value rationality that incorporates emerging legal interests and moral rights which lack suffi‐cient legal basis into the framework of rights for digitally disadvantaged groups. This aims to create a broader and more quick discourse on protecting these rights， emphasiz‐ing the human-centered values of the digital age. The dual aspects of these rights not only validate the necessity of the concept but also reveal the underlying essence that has been obscured.However， the discussion of the dual aspects does not provide a com‐prehensive framework for analyzing the concept of rights for digitally disadvantaged groups. This paper， in its pursuit of thoroughness and rigor， attempts to reinterpret the internal operational logic and external theoretical positioning of this concept as a com‐prehensive system， for its “multidimensional existence.”Based on the distinction of the dual aspects of rights， the rights of digitally disadvantaged groups should be viewed as a conceptual system rather than a specific right， which can guide the prac‐tice of protection. For inherent rights within the statutory rights system， such as the right to accessible communication for individuals with disabilities， these rights have clear legal foundations and can be protected through complaints to relevant authorities or litigation. In contrast， emerging legal interests and expectations within the value system， such as the right to disconnect， may require alternative protection methods， such as public opinion supervision and legislative proposals， as evidenced by the pro‐posal to incorporate the “right to disconnect and rest” into law during the meeting of NPC and CPPCC. The gradient construction of the conceptual system for the rights of digitally disadvantaged groups supports the continuous evolution of this concept. The statutory rights system provides a legal basis for the conceptual system and nourishes the value system with practical resources， while the value system continually fosters the emergence of new inherent rights.

KEY WORDS： digitally disadvantaged groups； digital human rights； emerging rights； digital gap

On the Bundle of Rights Theory in Data Rights Confirmation

TANG Jingyao

（Human Rights Institute， Southwest University of Political Science and Law）

Abstract： With the vigorous growth of the current digital economy， the rapid increase in the speed of data circulation and the scope of expanding influence have led to a trend in data rights confirmation in China. The diverse conflicts of interest during the data flow process have resulted in the complexity of data rights confirmation. Two paths， represented by normative construction models and behavioral control models， provide different approaches to resolving these conflicts. Notably， many scholars sup‐porting the normative construction path for data rights confirmation collectively incor‐porated a theoretical tool， the “bundle of rights” theory. The bundle of rights serves as an appropriate device for interpreting the characteristics of data rights structures and building a data rights system， as reflected in the specific fields of data ownership rights， data processing and using rights， and data product operation rights.However， with the ever-increasing maturity of theory and the development practical work， the theoretical gaps between data rights confirmation and the bundle of rights have become increasingly apparent. On the one hand， there needs to be more clarity regard‐ing the bundle of rights theory. Current research has summarized four characteristics of the bundle of rights： first， it emphasizes relationships among people rather than between people and objects， second， it has a clustering effect， third， its rights are flex‐ible and can be adjusted in quantity， and fourth， it can integrate social values， but these points have not been fully substantiated. Additionally， improper depictions of rights forms have exacerbated theoretical confusion； different forms such as the spheres of rights， the trees of rights， the networks of rights， and the blocks of rights each have their characteristics and limitations， with unclear boundaries. On the other hand， the misinterpretation of the bundle of rights theory has intensified the misjudgment of the characteristics of data rights. Due to the ambiguity and flow of the subject of data rights， and the high control of symbolic systems over data rights objects， the interpreta‐tion of the concept of data rights has become increasingly vague. Furthermore， inad‐equate interpretation of the “actant rhizome ontology” has left unresolved issues regarding how various interest subjects interact in data circulation and how the rights structure operates. The logical disconnection between theoretical tools and research subjects has become a pressing issue that needs to be addressed in the work of data rights confirmation.To bridge these gaps and demonstrate the theoretical guidance of the bundle of rights for data confirmation， it is essential to emphasize the conceptual value of the bundle of rights， which attempts to break away from a singular， hierarchi‐cal rights allocation model. Of course， the bundle of rights does not represent a perfect rights form for data rights structures. To fully realize the theoretical value， it is neces‐sary not only to acknowledge the expansion of discussion space on data rights confir‐mation provided by the bundle of rights but also to integrate and improve the bundle of rights theory. For instance， one might combine Carl Wellman’s views on the interre‐lationships of rights structures to reform Hohfeld’s analysis of rights structures. Addi‐tionally， as a right’s form encompassing openness， fluidity， and complexity， the emer‐gence and development of the bundle of rights reflect the shift of researchers’ dis‐course regarding the value of data rights subject， relational dynamics， and system con‐struction. The bundle of rights offers a new form that potentially protects data rights from excessive intrusion by data powers. Tracing the origins of the bundle of rights theory and clarifying its structural characteristics and theoretical implications is essen‐tial for exploring the current data rights confirmation in China. This also helps address the increasingly urgent rights claims of various interest subjects in data interactions， contributing to constructing an orderly digital governance framework in pursuing digi‐tal justice.

KEY WORDS： data rights confirmation； data rights； bundle of rights； rights structure

On the Incentive Mechanisms for Corporation’s Fulfillment of Environmental Responsibilities from the Perspective of Business and Human Rights

WANG Huaiyong， ZHU Feng

（Research Center of Digital Economy and Rule of Law， Southwest University of Political Science and Law； School of Economic Law， Southwest University of Political Science and Law）

Abstract： From the perspective of corporation centrism， environmental responsi‐bility is a business-centered， voluntary， and optional form of social responsibility， which struggles to provide sufficient internal and external driving forces for corpora‐tions to fulfill their environmental responsibilities. The perspective of business and human rights can offer a supplementary understanding and more substantial theoretical and practical support for demanding and incentivizing corporations to fulfill their envi‐ronmental responsibilities. On the one hand， this perspective shifts the human rights discourse， moving away from the corporation-centric paradigm that ties environmental responsibilities to corporation profits and economic growth， clarifying the relationship between environmental rights and development， and addressing the shortcomings of traditional corporation social responsibility theories regarding human rights values. On the other hand， introducing the business and human rights perspective facilitates lever‐aging human rights mechanisms， such as accessing international human rights frame‐works and related norms， to create a social， market， and institutional environment that promotes corporation accountability for environment-related human rights， thereby enhancing external pressure and internal motivation for corporations to fulfill these responsibilities. From a practical aspect， the internal and external incentive mecha‐nisms for fulfilling corporation environmental responsibilities are composed of national-level policy incentives and legal regulations， active societal responses and public pressure， corporation reputation effects and competitive advantages in protect‐ing environment. However， examining the current state of corporations’ fulfillment of environmental responsibility from the perspective of business and human rights reveals that the relevant internal and external incentive mechanisms in China’s corpo‐rations still face challenges of ineffective motivation. First， there are issues of ambigu‐ity and unfairness in the standards for positive incentives， and the standards for nega‐tive incentives suffer from a blurred line between “mandatory and voluntary” and weak punitive measures after crossing the threshold. Second， public response to corpo‐ration environmental responsibility remains weak， with insufficient pro-activity. Third， the system for fulfilling corporation environmental responsibilities has shortcomings， leading to superficial compliance， ineffective internal regulations， lax assessments， and unclear information disclosure.Based on this， it is essential to use human rights con‐cepts， institutional experiences， and relevant normative practices as beneficial guid‐ance and reference to explore optimized paths for incentivizing corporation’s fulfill‐ment of environmental responsibility. First， standards related to environmental respon‐sibility should be rationalized and the application process should be precisely defined based on a clear understanding of the components of environmental responsibility， thereby improving the applicable standards for corporation accountability. Second， legal and policy frameworks should further clarify expectations for corporation protec‐tion of environment-related human rights while enhancing cooperation between the government and social organizations in environmental supervision， education， and talent cultivation to accelerate the social collaborative process of environment-related human rights. Finally， corporations should commit to environmental responsibility policies and collaboratively establish an environment-related human rights due dili‐gence system with stakeholders at all levels of society， including four key components： a preliminary assessment， result correction， ongoing monitoring， and information dis‐closure， while providing effective internal complaint channels for affected parties.

KEY WORDS： business and human rights； corporation environmental responsi‐bility； incentive mechanisms

Medical Racism Against Black People in the United States： Historical Perspectives and Current Realities

SHANG Haiming， LIU Xiubin

（Human Rights Institute， Southwest University of Political Science and Law； Human Rights Institute， Southwest University of Political Science and Law）

Abstract： Although the United States has one of the most advanced and compre‐hensive health care systems in the world， medical racism against black people persists within American society. Whether it is life expectancy， medical insurance coverage， or access to medical services， black communities consistently experience the most signifi‐cant disparities， placing them at the bottom of American society. This huge gap between blacks and whites in the United States in the area of health care is in fact a consequence of long-time medical racism， which leads to lower rates of health insur‐ance coverage， less access to quality health care， greater risk of death from chronic dis‐eases such as diabetes and heart disease in the black communities.The roots of medical racism in the United States can be traced back to the era of slavery， during which whites provided enslaved people with minimal medical care primarily aimed at “main‐taining their economic value”. In addition， enslaved individuals were frequently sub‐jected to coercive medical experimentation. These practices not only contributed to the poor health outcomes of black people but also fostered a deep， enduring mistrust of the American health-care system within black communities.Although the American Civil War brought an official end to over two centuries of slavery in 1865 with the legal emancipation of enslaved black individuals， the de3Z3V5Sb+mZ+K3MdQEuZZqVv04TClqAhhl+YCpmuNx2M=ep-seated racial inequalities in American society persisted. Systemic racism， particularly in the healthcare system， remained entrenched and continued to shape and reinforce the unequal power dynam‐ics in healthcare for the next 150 years. Southern black populations were de facto dis‐enfranchised from accessing equitable healthcare services， and inequalities in health care between blacks and whites continued to widen.With the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the establishment of a series of health care programs at the fed‐eral level， considerable progress has been made in the protection of black people’s right dPh4b76cmZxpv1maKXUwiy2cfuDyEOE2/td3K2+jmh8=to health. However， the disadvantaged health status of blacks has not been funda‐mentally improved， and there is still a huge gap between blacks and whites in terms of access to medical resources and improvement of health conditions.The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964， alongside the establishment of various federal healthcare programs， marked significant progress in protecting the right to health of black Ameri‐cans. However， despite these advancements， the overall health status of black commu‐nities has not been fundamentally improved. A significant gap remains between black and white Americans in terms of access to medical resources and improvement in health conditions.Since the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that “all men are created equal”， the concept of “equality” has been upheld as a foundational principle and core value of the United States. However， an analysis of racial discrimination against black Americans in the medical field uncovers a long and persistent history of inequality， one that continues to manifest today. While it is relatively easy for the United States to eliminate explicit racial discrimination in legislation， it is extremely challenging to eradicate medical inequality in the social sphere due to economic dis‐parities and medical racism that is deeply rooted in ideology.

KEY WORDS： medical racism； slavery； racial segregation； Civil Rights Move‐ment

A Human Rights-based Approach to Biodiversity Governance

ZHANG Xu

（Law School， Lanzhou University）

Abstract： Economic and social development are intrinsically linked to the utiliza‐tion of ecosystems， and the relationship between ecosystems and human rights is con‐tinually shaped by social systems， cultural practices， and science and technology. Human rights， sustainability， and biodiversity are deeply interconnected， as the full realization of human rights is contingent upon the preservation of healthy and sustain‐able ecosystems. Conversely， the degradation and loss of biodiversity directly threaten the ability of individuals and communities to fully enjoy their human rights.Traditional research on biodiversity governance has predominantly focused on strategies and framewnSzgYkJVI1gltp4XM7dX5g==orks aimed at managing and conserving biodiversity， such as conservation， sus‐tainable use， and compliance. However， contemporary biodiversity governance prac‐tices are often marked by ongoing human rights violations in the name of conserva‐tion， which include： insufficient participation and a lack of transparency in the formu‐lation and implementation of biodiversity conservation policies and projects， a lack of access to effective and timely remedies for groups affected by ecosystem loss and deg‐radation， a deficit in corporate accountability for the negative environmental and human rights impacts of their actions， and a loss of access to justice and biodiversityrelated information. The protection of biodiversity is an important orientation for the promotion of human rights. Due to the lack of a clear political agenda in the past， the ideological coupling with neo-liberalism inevitably existed in biodiversity governance， which then became an arena of fragmented， individualized and privatized global gover‐nance. This is the main reason why the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets under the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity have not been achieved.As a sig‐nificant milestone in biodiversity governance adopted under China’s presidency， the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework underscores the importance of integrating a human rights-based approach in its implementation. This approach priori‐tizes human rights as the core and guiding principles， promoting the empowerment and participation of rights-holders， while urging duty-bearers to fulfill their obliga‐tions. The ultimate goal is to ensure that human dignity， equality and rights are respected and protected. The human rights-based approach to biodiversity governance requires that biodiversity be managed and conserved in a just and sustainable manner， which includes ensuring that conservation initiatives do not compromise the rights of specific communities or ethnic groups and that they support the long-term health and functioning of ecosystems. Additionally， this approach advocates for the respect and promotion of indigenous knowledge and traditional practices， while safeguarding the participatory and decision-making rights of communities in managing local biodiver‐sity. By reinforcing the public dimension of biodiversity governance， this approach not only focuses on outcome-oriented biodiversity management but also emphasizes the human rights protection throughout the process. In doing so， it offers a more compre‐hensive and proactive framework for addressing social problems and injustices. Main‐streaming the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity， as outlined in KunmingMontreal Global Biodiversity Framework， extends beyond the involvement of parties and observers. It also requires active participation from international agencies， nongovernmental organizations， businesses， social organizations and the broader public at all levels to ensure effective implementation. The multifaceted governance approach， which includes strengthening international cooperation， ensuring state compliance with human rights obligations， encouraging businesses to exercise human rights due diligence， and fostering broad social participation， constitutes the core paradigm of the human rights-based approach to biodiversity governance. This approach also repre‐sents the most effective pathway for the successful implementation of the KunmingMontreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

KEY WORDS： biodiversity； a human rights-based approach； Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework； Convention on Biological Diversity； human rights due diligence

Conceptual Updating and Pathway Optimization in Human Rights Law Education

HA Guanqun， CHEN Zhengtao， LI Shaoxuan

（School of Political Science and Public Administration， Northwest University of Political Science and Law； Center for Human Rights Studies， Northwest University of Political Science and Law； Center for Human Rights Studies， Northwest University of Political Science and Law）

Abstract： As a comprehensive programmatic document outlining the blueprint for advancing legal education and legal theoretical research in the new era， the Opin‐ions on Strengthening Legal Education and Legal Theoretical Research in the New Era， jointly issued by the General Office of the Communist Party of China （CPC） Cen‐tral Committee and the General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China， provides more precise ideological guidance on key aspects of legal educa‐tion including its direction of development， the layout of the institutions， the education system and its organization and leadership. Human rights legal education， as a vital component of legal education， must not only adapt to the evolving demands of legal education in the new era but also strengthen its alignment with major national human rights issues. By focusing on the dual dimensions of conceptual updating and pathway optimization， human rights law education should transcend traditional knowledge boundaries， update its discourse， and foster knowledge innovation. This approach aims to synchronize innovation in human rights law education with the high-quality human rights progress. In terms of teaching philosophy， human rights law education must embrace new concepts such as subjectivity， autonomy， normativity， universality， and interdisciplinarity. Specifically， the development of human rights law education in the new era should prioritize the subjectivity of this field and deeply explore human rights elements within China’s rich cultural heritage； it should also enhance the autonomy of human rights law education and emphasize a human rights development path with Chi‐nese characteristics； it should adhere to normativity in the interpretation of human rights jurisprudence while conducting an in-depth study of value-neutral international human rights institutions so as to establish clear， impartial standards for international human rights； moreover， it should highlight the universality of human rights law educa‐tion and justify the significance of the right to life and the right to development， par‐ticularly for countries in the Global South； lastly， it should underline the interdisciplin‐arity in talent training by addressing complex social issues from diverse perspectives， thus meeting the growing demand for multidisciplinary talents.In terms of teaching practice， human rights law education should actively respond to the demands of con‐ceptual shifts and explore pathways for restructuring. First， the subjectivity of human rights law education requires upholding the “two combinations” in the human rights field and enhancing the theorization and interpretation of China’s excellent tradition of human rights thought. Second， the autonomy of human rights law education requires a thorough study of the Marxist outlook on human rights and the application of dialecti‐cal materialism to critically examine the essence of Western human rights theories. Third， the normativity of human rights law education requires a comprehensive expla‐nation of the development， purpose， significance， and current status of international human rights mechanisms and treaties， alongside a deep understanding of China’s role and activities within international human rights organizations. Fourth， the universality of human rights law education requires the publicity and promotion of Chinese wisdom and experiences based on China’s human rights practices. Finally， the interdis‐ciplinarity of human rights law education requires enriching the interdisciplinary attri‐butes of this field by the integration of regional and national research perspectives.

KEY WORDS： human rights law； human rights law education； human rights studies； interdiscipline

Judicial Application of Human Rights Principles： A Case Study on Publicly Available Judgements

JIANG Qiuwei

（School of Law， Guangdong University of Technology）

Abstract： In modern countries， the protection of human rights is considered the cornerstone of both democracy and the rule of law. The evolution from enumerating specific rights to incorporating broader， generalized human rights provisions repre‐sents an institutional advancement in the framework of human rights protection in China. From a systemic perspective， the fundamental rights of citizens represent a spe‐cific embodiment of human rights， while human rights are the generalized expression of these fundamental rights. This study analyzes 574 judicial cases in which the people’s courts of China applied human rights principles and reveals that most of these cases fall within civil， criminal， and administrative law and that these cases can be categorized into three distinct types： value proclamation， rhetorical discourse， and direct justification. In the value proclamation type， many people’s courts have pro‐claimed human rights principles or human rights guarantees as a value， but these proc‐lamations do not function as evidence in the adjudication process. Instead， they serve as a form of “icing on the cake”， reinforcing the judgment without influencing its core legal basis. In the rhetorical discourse type， some people’s courts express human rights principles in a manner that is somewhat disconnected from the adjudication out‐come. In such cases， human rights principles serve primarily a rhetorical function in the reasoning， rather than acting as substantive legal testimony. As a result， the final judgment often represents a “sudden departure” from the invoked human rights prin‐ciples. In direct justification type， many people’s courts have explicitly used human rights principles as a central rationale for their decisions， thereby directly influencing and supporting the adjudication outcome. In applying human rights principles， the people’s courts adhere to the formulations set forth in legal documents， prioritizing these principles within the broader framework of fundamental rights. However， judi‐cial practice still reveals deficiencies in the legal argumentation， which， to some degree， stems from discrepancies in the understanding of the core structure of human rights principles and the methodology in their application. The methodology in the application of human rights principles necessitates a careful consideration of their interrelationship with specific legal rules and pertinent legal principles. Whether the human rights principles are invoked in the Constitution or specific statutes， courts are required to engage in thorough reasoning， explicitly connecting these principles to con‐crete legal rules rather than relying on vague generalities. When connected to pertinent legal principles， human rights principles should assume a negative role rather than a positive one， serving as vetoes and guiding influences. People’s courts cannot raise new claims solely based on human rights principles； instead， they， in accordance with human rights principles， are tasked with evaluating existing claims that are made pur‐suant to pertinent legal principles or rules. In cases where no specific legal rules exist， the people’s courts should align their considerations with the legal principles of the relevant area， thereby deriving corresponding specific rules based on this evaluation.

KEY WORDS： human rights principles； rationale； methodology in the applica‐tion