Type and boundary of blacklist system
Hou jiachun, PhD candidate, southeast university law school
In 2014, the notice of the state council on printing and distributing the outline of the plan for the construction of the social credit system (2014-2020) proposed to comprehensively promote the construction of the social credit system. In 2016, the guidance of the state council on establishing and improving the joint incentive system for keeping faith and the joint punishment system for breaking faith to speed up the construction of social integrity stipulated the reward and punishment system after collecting credit information, namely the 'red list' and 'blacklist' systems. In recent years, with the advance of national policies, the social credit system has gradually constructed a series of combination systems based on social credit investigation, with the blacklist system as the core and the consequences of joint punishment for breach of trust, which has achieved good results. However, in the regulation of social credit governance system, some places apply it to the credit investigation and evaluation system of illegal behavior, disciplinary behavior, uncivilized behavior and immoral behavior that have nothing to do with 'credit'. For example, according to the China education news and other media reports, a teacher of wulian county no. 2 middle school in rizhao city, shandong province, was suspended from the school after spanking students with textbooks and other methods, and was added to the blacklist of the countys credit information evaluation system by the local education authorities. After the incident was exposed in the media, local authorities later withdrew the additional punishment. At present, personal credit investigation has become ubiquitous, so it is urgent for the credit evaluation mechanism to clarify the generation and types of the blacklist system, so as to investigate the limits or boundaries of the blacklist system.
'Credit' originally belongs to the evaluation of personality quality in social life, and its most direct performance is to abide by the agreement and promise, which is widely existed in the market transaction process. The punishment of dishonest behavior existed widely before the national decision to promote the construction of social credit system. It can be roughly divided into three types: the first is the blacklist system of private subjects. In the process of economic transactions, some enterprises will be through combing with consumers or other business partners between the transaction records, to the customer credit evaluation, such as electricity to store or consumer credit evaluation, dishonest ACTS will be part of a client into the blacklist of the development of the enterprise internal, limiting its business activities within the enterprise. The second is the blacklist system in the judicial field. Judicial field blacklist system, the originally does not perform the judicial decisions 'LaoLai', which fails to fulfill its obligations specified in legal document, and has the ability and refuse to fulfill obligations specified in legal document, to forge evidence, violence, threat or other methods, the execution of the resistance, the legal circumstances of the rights of the person subjected to execution for further restrictions. The third is the administrative blacklist system, which is promoted by the current government and led by the administrative organs, to conduct credit investigation statistics on various ACTS of dishonesty in the society, and according to the statistical results, some ACTS of dishonesty accumulated to a certain degree of blacklist, and joint punishment. At present, the blacklist system is characterized by the construction guided by the government, and the development and expansion of its administrative blacklist system are far ahead of the two types. At the same time, the administrative blacklist system covers many fields of social life, and the credit investigation system of various administrative organs can be interconnected through information technology, so that the impact scope of joint punishment on relative parties far exceeds the previous two types of blacklist systems. However, behind the expansion of the blacklist system is that the administrative organ expands the administrative power through social credit management instead of legal authorization. Therefore, some people worry that its full coverage in modern social life may become a 'digital leviathan', which will undermine the freedom and rights of citizens.
From the above three types of blacklist system, the first two are established in the case of citizens do not keep faith, in a specific area of the faithless restrictions. The first type of blacklist system for private subjects can determine the rights and obligations between the subjects of both parties through the principle of 'freedom of contract' in the civil law. The 'principle of good faith' in the civil law indicates that the breach of faith between private subjects has long been brought into the orbit of the rule of law. In equal civil and commercial activities, private subjects can blacklist specific objects according to their free will, refuse to provide services for those who have lost faith, and fully meet the requirements of 'agreement' in the civil law to conclude contracts. The second kind of judicial blacklist system has a clear legislative definition of the scope of its establishment and the content of punishment. Failure to perform the judgment after it has been confirmed by the judicial judgment is a serious breach of trust in defiance of the judicial authority. The criteria for listing and removing the blacklist are clear, and the measures for joint punishment are clear. In the process of constructing the blacklist system, the blacklist system based on credit evaluation is generalized into a negative record of all kinds of moral characters or illegal and discipl
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
黑名单制度的类型及边界
2014 年，《国务院关于印发社会信用体系建设规划纲要（2014-2020 年）的通知》提出全面推动社会信用体系的建设；2016 年，《国务院关于建立完善守信联合激励和失信联合惩戒制度加快推进社会诚信建设的指导意见》对搜集信用信息后的奖惩进行规定，即“红名单”和“黑名单”制度。近年来，随着国家政策的推进，社会信用体系逐步构建出以社会征信为基础、以黑名单制度为核心和失信联合惩戒为后果的系列组合制度，其取得了良好的效果。但在社会信用治理体系规制中，有的地方将其应用到了与“信用”无关的违法行为、违纪行为、不文明行为和不道德行为征信评价体系中。例如，据《中国教育报》等媒体报道，山东省日照市五莲县二中一教师，因用课本抽打等方式体罚学生，被学校停职后，又被当地教育主管部门追加处罚列入该县信用信息评价系统黑名单。该事经媒体曝光后，当地主管部门随后撤销了追加处罚。当前，个人征信已变得无处不在，因此，信用评价机制亟待厘清黑名单制度的产生、类型等，从而考察黑名单制度设置的限制或边界。
“信用”原本属于社会生活中人格品质评价，其最直接的表现是遵守约定、言出必行，其广泛存在于市场交易过程中。对失信行为的惩戒早在国家决定推进社会信用体系建设之前便广泛存在，大致可以分为三种类型：第一种是私主体的黑名单制度。在经济交易过程中，有些企业会通过梳理与消费者或者其他企业合作伙伴之间的交易记录，给客户进行信用评价，如电商中对店铺或者消费者的信用评价，将部分有失信行为的客户纳入企业内部制定的黑名单，限制其在本企业内的商业活动。第二种是司法领域的黑名单制度。司法领域黑名单制度，其原本是对不履行司法判决的“老赖”，即未履行生效法律文书确定的义务，且具有履行能力而拒不履行生效法律文书确定的义务，以伪造证据、暴力、威胁等方法妨碍、抗拒执行等法定情形之一的被执行人的权利作进一步限制。第三种是行政黑名单制度，即当前政府推进的以行政机关为主导，对社会中各项失信行为进行征信统计，并根据统计结果将部分失信行为累积到一定程度者纳入黑名单，并进行联合惩戒。当前，黑名单制度呈现出以政府为引导建构的特色，其行政黑名单制度的发展和扩张速度远超前两种类型。同时，行政黑名单制度囊括社会生活诸多领域，通过信息技术可使各行政机关的征信系统互通互联，使得联合惩戒对相对人的影响范围远超过前两种类型黑名单制度。但行政黑名单制度扩张背后是行政机关通过社会信用治理而非法律授权方式扩张行政权力。因此，有人担忧，它在现代社会生活中的全面覆盖可能成为“数字利维坦”，反噬公民的自由和权利。
从以上三种黑名单制度类型看，前两种都是建立在公民不守信用的情形下，在特定领域对失信者的限制。第一类私主体的黑名单制度，可以通过民法中“契约自由”原则确定双方主体之间的权利义务关系，失信行为在商业领域中直接可以依照合同法等相关法律予以处理。民法中的“诚信原则”昭示，私主体间的失信行为早已纳入法治轨道之中。私主体在平等的民商事活动中，可以根据自由意志对特定对象纳入黑名单，拒绝为失信者提供服务，完全符合民法上订立契约需达成“合意”的要求。第二类司法黑名单制度，其设置的范围和惩戒的内容具有立法上明确的界定。已经由司法裁判确认后仍不履行判决，是一种蔑视司法权威的严重失信行为，列入、移除黑名单的标准清晰，联合惩戒的措施明确。而在行政黑名单制度建构过程中，基于信用评价的黑名单制度泛化成为一项对各类品德或违法违纪行为的负面记录，其有背离黑名单制度对信用界定的原意。黑名单制度，作为一项对失信行为确认记录，若异化为一项行政处罚行为，不仅违背《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》对处罚种类法定的规定，也反映出社会信用黑名单制度的准入与退出机制缺乏有效程序细则。
因此，社会信用体系建设有其必要性和重大的社会价值，但建设过程中应当正确认识信用建设，要避免盲目扩张。部分地方城市滥用黑名单制度，并实施联合惩戒，变相扩张行政权，其行为已经侵害了公民合法权益。笔者认为，为了避免政府主导的黑名单制度在社会信用体系建设过程中的滥用，应对黑名单制度的设置边界进行必要限制。总体而言，需要从失信行为的概念、征信范围、黑名单制度适用范围、黑名单列入与移除程序、法律保留等五个方面进行限制。第一，需要通过立法明确失信行为的概念内涵和外延，避免“失信行为”成为“口袋概念”被滥用。从当前立法看，尚未有法律对失信行为进行规范意义的界定。各地实施的行政规范性文件中，采取的大多数为“原则性概括 列举式规定”，并以违法性和违背诚信原则作为失信行为的主要特点。但当前规范层面的失信行为缺乏反向的概念限缩，使得实践中失信行为的列举背离了“信任”的基本文意。因此，通过立法明确“失信行为”概念的内涵和外延，尤其是对什么不是失信行为进行反面列举，才有助于让社会信用建设体系步入有序发展。同时，失信行为列入黑名单，不仅需要种类限制，还需要程度限制以及次数上的限制。第二，需要限制征信系统中的信用信息搜集范围。黑名单制度是建立在社会征信过程的一项子制度，需要明确哪些要素是与信用评价相关，达到什么情形才能够列入黑名单。征信的要素和条件，应当与信用建设相关，不可滥用征信制度过度搜集行政相对人的信息，使其成为一种扩大对行政相对人处罚范围的手段。第三，需要限制列入黑名单之后的联合惩戒措施范围。行政机关透过黑名单制度对失信者实施联合惩戒，实质上对行政相对人权利的影响不亚于行政处罚行为。更重要的是，列入黑名单与实施联合惩戒的后果之间可能不存在直接关联，如有人可能因为随地吐痰，最终导致无法申请政府保障性住房。黑名单制度滥用和泛化将使得黑名单制度隐含违背行政法上“禁止不当联结”原则的违法危机。第四，需要明确黑名单制度的退出机制。将个人列入黑名单建立在各项信用评价基础之上，而各个行政机关对个人信用评价具有累进制计分评价的特点，一旦列入黑名单，随之而来的联合惩戒将大大扩大对行政相对人处罚的力度和范围。建立在累计评分制度上的黑名单制度，应当明确达到什么的样的条件才可以移除出黑名单。否则将使得列入黑名单者一直处在惩戒的不利处境，而联合惩戒的可能则涉嫌违背行政法上“一事不再罚”的原则。第五，需要通过立法确立黑名单制度。在社会信用体系建设过程中，黑名单制度尚未有立法对此进行规定。将失信者列入黑名单，不仅是对个人尊严的损害，伴随其后的联合惩戒让列入黑名单成为具有行政处罚效果的行为。基于法律保留原则，黑名单制度需要通过立法方式赋予其形式上的正当性基础，更需要通过立法的民主程序赋予其实质上的正当性基础，让黑名单制度为建设信用社会体系发挥有效作用。笔者认为，在各地纷纷构筑社会信用制度的当下，黑名单制度不能被泛化、滥用。应当认识到，当前社会信用治理所面临的问题不是如何将黑名单制度全覆盖，而是需要警醒黑名单制度设置也应当有其边界，有其不可跨越的雷区。
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[234875]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
