On the Possibilities and Limitations of Arbitration Punishment

Zhu Fuyong 한국중재학회 2018 중재연구 Vol.28 No.2

Independence and impartiality are the operating core of an arbitration disciplinary mechanism. Due to many factors, illegalities and improper acts in arbitration cases are facts of life in our country, and have greatly damaged the credibility of arbitration. It is necessary for us to perfect the operating mechanism of arbitration discipline from the four pluralistic progressive aspects of disciplining the cause externalization, disciplining the subject duality, the quasi-judicature of disciplinary procedures and the disciplining measures so that the populace can experience fairness and justice in every case. We should perfect the supporting measures such as the strict selection conditions and procedures of arbitrators, improving the quality of the arbitrator team, exploring the management mechanisms and strengthening the evaluation dynamic. An examination is a general investigation and evaluation so as to provide encouragement for being continually engaged as arbitrators, but it does not provide an objective basis of arbitration discipline. It is urgent to perfect the arbitration guarantee system on the basis of meeting the material needs of the arbitrators so as to enhance the sense of professional rank and honour of arbitration.

On the Construction of Technology - Embedded View of Authenticity of Blockchain Evidence

Zhu Fuyong,Wang Yaduo 동아대학교 법학연구소 2022 東亞法學 Vol.- No.97

『인민법원 온라인 소송 규칙』에서 블록체인의 증거 보관에 대해 ‘기술적으로 자체 증명’이라는 속성을 명확하게 규정하고 블록체인 전자 증거의 살실상의 추정 효력을 인정하였다. 그러나 실제로 블록체인 기술의 사용은 정적화 및 단말화되었으며 증거 보관 플랫폼의 자격 기준도 일치하지 않았으므로 분쟁 사실 확인의 효과를 어느 정도 억제하였다. 이에 본 연구는 기술진화론의 관점을 바탕으로 비이성적 진실성, 이성적 진실성, 기술보조적 진실성이라는 전자 증거의 진실성의 역사적 발전과정을 정리하여 검토하고 추정 진실을 이론적 기초로 하여 사법연맹체인(Judicial Consortium Blockchain)을 기술적 기반으로 한 기술 삽입형 진실성을 제시한다. 제도적 혁신 측면에서 체계적 해석 및 문의적 해석을 사용하여 블록체인 전자 증거의 원본 해석 경로를 개선하며 규범 문서를 통합하고 플랫폼 자격 심사 규칙을 통일시키며 전문가 인력 자원 배치를 강화하고 기술 장벽을 제거한다. 앞에 제시한 3개 측면으로 과학 기술과 사법의 융합을 추진하여 스마트 사법 시대에 전자 증거의 진실성을 기술적으로 확인하는 데 높은 정확성 및 효율성을 이루고 개별 사건의 진실 발견 및 사법 공정을 추진하고자 한다. The Online Litigation Rules for the People’s Courts define the “technical self-certification” attribute of blockchain evidence preservation, and recognize the presumption of authenticity of blockchain electronic evidence. However, in practice, the static and terminal use of blockchain technology and the inconsistent qualification standards of evidence preservation platforms have inhibited fact-finding process to a certain extent. From the perspective of technological evolution, this paper reviews the historical evolution process of view of authenticity of electronic evidence: prerational view of authenticity, rational view of authenticity,technologyassisted view of authenticity and proposes the technology-embedded view of authenticity with presumption of authenticity as the theoretical basis and judicial consortium blockchain as the technical support. In terms of institutional innovation, this paper adopts system interpretation and contextual interpretation to improve the original interpretation path of blockchain electronic evidence; integrates normative documents and unifies platform qualification review rules; strengthens expert manpower allocation and eliminates technical barriers. Based on the three aspects mentioned above, this research promotes the integration of science, technology and justice, and achieve high precision and efficiency of electronic evidence technology authentication in the era of intelligent justice, and to promote case disputes unveiling and fair justice.

On the Optimization of Judicial Review Path for China's PPP Arbitration Agreement

Zhu Fuyong,강윤민 현대중국학회 2023 현대중국연구 Vol.25 No.1

In China, PPP agreements involve two k inds of administrative and civil and commercial legal relations. Different courts have different understandings of the nature of PPP arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the agreement, and whether the agreement is against the social public interest, and have different review results, which have a certain negative impact on the credibility of arbitration and judicial authority. With the increasing participation of foreign enterprises in China's domestic PPP projects, especially the increasing participation of PPP projects along the "One Belt and One Road", and the steady progress of the Supreme People's Court in issuing the Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Administrative Agreement Cases, it is particularly important and urgent to focus on the judicial review of China's PPP arbitration agreements. To this end, the core of PPP agreement is the perspective of social capital participation, the characteristics of commercial contracts in PPP agreement and the perspective of PPP protocol practice, on the basis of analyzing the PPP arbitration agreement as a civil and commercial contract, to clarify the essential attributes of civil and commercial contracts in the PPP arbitration agreement, from the equality of the subject status of the agreement, the purpose of the agreement is to realize their own rights and interests, the content of the agreement is civil rights and civil obligations, and the agreement of the parties in the agreement, to determine the arbitrability of the PPP agreement. At the same time, it is clear that the content of the arbitration award shall not violate social public order, good customs and the common interests of all members of society, And the basic systems and principles of our law, the basic principles of social and economic life. In addition, the "change of situation" provisions in the agreement and the laws, regulations and rules involved in the agreement also need to be paid close attention to, so as to bring the PPP arbitration agreement into the scientific, standardized and orderly judicial review track, and boost the modernization of the arbitration system and arbitration governance capacity.

On the Possibilities and Limitations of Arbitration Punishment

Zhu Fuyong 한국중재학회 2018 중재연구 Vol.28 No.3

Independence and impartiality are the operating core of an arbitration disciplinary mechanism. Due to many factors, illegalities and improper acts in arbitration cases are facts of life in our country, and have greatly damaged the credibility of arbitration. It is necessary for us to perfect the operating mechanism of arbitration discipline from the four pluralistic progressive aspects of disciplining the cause externalization, disciplining the subject duality, the quasi-judicature of disciplinary procedures and the disciplining measures so that the populace can experience fairness and justice in every case. We should perfect the supporting measures such as the strict selection conditions and procedures of arbitrators, improving the quality of the arbitrator team, exploring the management mechanisms and strengthening the evaluation dynamic. An examination is a general investigation and evaluation so as to provide encouragement for being continually engaged as arbitrators, but it does not provide an objective basis of arbitration discipline. It is urgent to perfect the arbitration guarantee system on the basis of meeting the material needs of the arbitrators so as to enhance the sense of professional rank and honour of arbitration.

On the Adjustment of Prior Consultation of the Interests in China’s Personal Information Transfer

ZHU FUYONG(주복용),LIU MENGYUN(유몽운) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2024 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.46

Normative Gaps, Theoretical Innovations, and Systemic Improvements in China’s Network Identity Authentication

Zhu, FuYong,Guo, Kai 중국지역학회 2025 중국지역연구 Vol.12 No.2

디지털 시대 네트워크 신원인증 규범의 가치는 안전을 통한 사생활권, 공공이익, 개인의 자유행위 보호에 있다. 이와 관련한 현행법의 체계는 입법원칙 일원화, 기술표준 분산화, 감독메커니즘의 후진성으로 인해 제도적 면에서 다양한 문제를 야기하고 있다. 구체적으 로 중국의 「네트워크 안전법」과 「개인정보보호법」 등의 법률은 통합적 연계 프레임워크 부재로 안전·효율·공정 가치의 모순을 초래하였으며, 생체인식 기술의 확산적 적용은 ‘최소필요원칙’과 직접적 모순을 형성하였다. 기술표준의 ‘업계 분할화·지역 차별화·갱신 정체화’는 인증 효능을 약화시켰으며, 블록체인·페더레이션 러닝 등 신기술은 감체 후진성 으로 거버넌스 공백에 직면하였다. 동적균형이론에 기초하여 ‘리스크 적응-권한책임 균형-기술 제어’ 협치 프레임워크를 제안함으로써 네트워크 신원인증 입법의 기초 논리를 재구축하였다. 구체적으로, 장면 분류 인증 메커니즘을 통해 가치 갈등을 조율하여 정무·금 융 등 고감도 시나리오와 소셜·전자상거래 등 중저위험 시나리오를 구분하고 차별화된 인증기준을 시행하여야 할 것이다. 또 ‘정부 입법-플랫폼 기술 수탁-사용자 데이터 주권’으 로 하는 삼원적 공동거버넌스 구조로 권한책임 배분을 재정립하여 정부의 기초서비스 공급 주도권, 플랫폼의 기술수탁의무, 사용자의 데이터 유통 통제권을 명확히 하여야 한다. 국산 암호 알고리즘 동적 이전 메커니즘과 분산식 신원인증기술에 기반하여 양자공 격 저항형 암호체계 및 도메인 상호인증 프로토콜을 구축함으로써 디지털 주권과 글로벌 거버넌스 수요를 조화할 수 있을 것이다. 제도개선 전략은 입법원칙을 ‘안전우선’에서 동적균형으로 전환하고, ‘3단계 리스크 분류’ 모델을 구축하며, 인증기관 전주기 감독을 강화하고, ‘기초 공통표준+업계 전용표준’ 계층구조로 기술표준을 통합하여야 한다. 이러 한 접근법은 전통적 ‘규제-대항’ 논리를 극복하고, 양자우위·딥페이크 등 기술적 도전에 유연한 법치로 대응함으로써 기술 거버넌스와 법치 문명의 심층적 융합을 추진하며, 글로벌 사이버 공간 거버넌스에 중국 패러다임을 제시할 것이다. In the digital era, the value tensions in network identity authentication regulations are primarily manifested in the structural conflicts between security and privacy rights, as well as between public interests and individual freedoms. The current regulatory system is in a dilemma due to legislative principle disconnections, fragmented technical standards, and regulatory lag. On the one hand, laws such as the Cybersecurity Law and the Personal Information Protection Law lack a unified framework for connection, leading to a competition of values such as security, efficiency, and fairness. The widespread application of biometric recognition technology is in direct conflict with the “minimum necessity principle.” On the other hand, the “industry-based fragmentation, regional differentiation, and static updating” of technical standards weaken the effectiveness of authentication. Emerging technologies such as blockchain and federated learning face a governance vacuum due to regulatory lag. Based on the dynamic balance theory, this paper proposes a collaborative governance framework of “risk adaptation-rights and responsibilities equilibrium-technology controllability” to reconstruct the underlying logic of network identity authentication legislation. Specifically, by reconciling value conflicts through a scenario-based grading authentication mechanism, differentiating high-sensitivity scenarios such as government affairs and finance from medium and low-risk scenarios such as social networking and e-commerce, and implementing differentiated authentication standards. The “government rule-making-platform technical trusteeship-user data sovereignty” trinity governance structure reshapes the allocation of rights and responsibilities, clarifying that the government leads the supply of basic services, platforms fulfill technical trusteeship obligations, and users exercise control over data flow. Relying on the dynamic migration mechanism of domestic cryptographic algorithms and distributed identity authentication technology, an encryption system resistant to quantum attacks and cross-domain mutual recognition agreements are constructed to balance digital sovereignty and global governance needs. At the same time, institutional improvement strategies emphasize shifting legislative principles from “security first” to dynamic balance, building a “three-tier risk classification” model, strengthening the full-cycle supervision of certification authorities, and unifying technical specifications through a “basic common standards + industry-specific standards” layered architecture. This approach breaks through the traditional “regulation-confrontation” logic, responds to technological challenges such as quantum hegemony and deep fakes with resilient rule of law, promotes the deep integration of technological governance and the rule of law civilization, and provides a Chinese paradigm for global cyberspace governance.

Rethinking the Non-enforcement System of Chinese Arbitration Awards

Zhu Fuyong,Jiang Runmin 동아대학교 법학연구소 2021 東亞法學 Vol.- No.90

현재 중국 중재 재결 비집행 제도(the system of non-enforcement of arbitral awards)는 피신청자에 대한 권리구제의 기능을 포함할 뿐만 아니라, 중재집행에 대한 국가의 사법감독 목적도 담고 있다. 하지만 피신청자가 집행단계에서 제기한 항변사유는 통상 사법감독과 관련이 없으며, 또한 피신청자의 항변사유가 성립되면 중재판결의 집행력과 기판력을 상실하게 될 것이다. 이런 인식의 편차와 제도의 구조적 문제는 재판권과 집행권의 충돌로 이어질 수밖에 없다. 중재와 집행의 법리에 따라 집행력은 국가 사법기관에 전속되며, 중재는 민간 재량으로 집행 가능하려면 반드시 사법 기관의 심사와 확인을 거쳐야 한다. 따라서 중재판결의 적법성 심사를 재판조직에 맡기고, 제한된 심사원칙(the principle of limited review)을 따르고, 독립적이고 정당한 확인심사절차(confirmation review procedure)를 설치해야 한다. 즉 중재판결과 중재에 대한 중국 인민법원의 재정은 공동으로 집행근거를 구성하며, 외국의 입법경험을 참고로 하여 중재취소와 심사신청․집행신청의 연계, 중재집행의 사법심사 방식 및 각하신청과 심사 비집행 등 측면에서 중재집행 사법심사의 체계화를 구축하고 중재 법률제도의 입법표현을 보완하는데 있다. 그것으로 하여금 법을 준용하도록 하고 입체적인 중재 판결 비집행 제도를 발전시켜 이를 실무에 옮기게 한다. 이것은 중재사법감독에 대한 국가의 객관적 필요를 충족시킬 뿐 아니라, 재판권과 집행권이 분리된 집행 체계를 더욱 세분화하고 확실하게 할 것이다. Currently, the system of non-enforcement of arbitral awards in China not only includes the function of rights relief of the respondent, but also contains the purpose of judicial supervision of arbitration enforcement by the state. However, in general, the counterplea cause raised by the respondent in the enforcement stage is not related to judicial supervision. Moreover, the establishment of the counterplea cause raised by the respondent will lead to the loss of the corresponding enforcement and RES judicata of the arbitral award. Furthermore, these kinds of misunderstanding and structural problems of the system inevitably lead to the conflict between judicial power and enforcement power. According to the legal principles of arbitration and enforcement, the enforcement power belongs to the national judicial organs. Arbitration, as a private award, must be enforceable and must be reviewed and confirmed by the judicial organs. Consequently, the legality review of arbitral awards should be handed over to the judicial organization, and at the same time, following the principle of limited review, independent and proper confirmation review procedure should be set up, that is, the arbitral award and the People"s Court"s ruling on arbitration together constitute the basis for enforcement. Drawing lessons from overseas experiences, the systematization of judicial review of arbitration enforcement should be constructed from a series of aspects, including the connection between revocation of arbitration and application review and enforcement, the way of judicial review of arbitration enforcement, and rejection of application and non-enforcement. Also, the legislative expression of arbitration legal system should be perfected to make it have laws to follow. On this basis, the three-dimensional system of non-enforcement of arbitral awards should be developed and applied in practice. This not only meets the objective needs of the state for judicial supervision of arbitration, but also further refines and implements the enforcement mechanism of separating judicial power from enforcement power.