摘要
无论是从不同区域性公约的横向比较角度看,还是从《公约》的谈判历程来讲,联合打击网络犯罪上的争议问题都集中在刑事定罪范围和跨境取证规则等方面。在刑事定罪范围问题上,既然强调合作打击网络犯罪,那么重要的就是凝聚各方共识,求取网络犯罪治理的最大公约数,而不是简单地汇集、罗列各国的相关罪名。这就决定了:一则,《公约》的刑事定罪部分不能一味求全求宽,否则可能无法适应部分国家的网络犯罪立法,从而影响公约的签署、批准和履行;二则,所有国家都存在的成熟的、网络化的传统犯罪也并非不必要,因为提取公约数的前提是大家普遍接受某种犯罪类型。在具体的罪名衔接问题上,“干扰电子数据”“征求、获取、访问、拥有、控制儿童色情物品”等行为无法为我国刑法完全涵盖,未来需要通过修订立法实现国内法与《公约》的衔接,除此之外的相关罪名则可以经由解释实现衔接。需要强调的是,在未来批准条约时,即便要完善我国相关立法,也应当通过提高罪量标准,设定积极悔罪条款,降低刑罚严厉程度等方式,尽量降低其与国内法之间的不协调。在跨境取证规则上,主权原则应当被坚持,但也不能因此反对一切形式的跨境取证。此外,在财产的概念范畴、法人责任、管辖权规则等问题上,我国刑法与《公约》不存在本质冲突,未来通过司法解释等方式加以明确即可。
Whether examined from a horizontal comparison of different regional conventions or through the lens of the negotiation process of the UN Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes(the Convention), controversies in international efforts to combat cybercrime are primarily focused on the scope of criminalization and cross-border evidence collection rules. Regarding the scope of criminalization, the emphasis on cooperative efforts to address cybercrime necessitates forging consensus and identifying the greatest common denominator in cybercrime governance, rather than merely compiling or listing offenses from various jurisdictions. Consequently, two principles emerge: first, the criminalization provisions in the Convention must avoid excessive breadth or over-inclusiveness, as this might not align with the realities of cybercrime in certain countries, potentially hindering the signing, ratification, and implementation of the Convention. Second, offenses that are well-established, widely recognized, and technology-enabled versions of traditional crimes should not be excluded, as identifying common ground requires universal acceptance of certain offense types. In terms of harmonizing specific offenses, acts such as "interfering with electronic data" and "soliciting, obtaining, accessing, possessing, or controlling child pornography" are not entirely covered under China's existing criminal law. Legislative amendments will be necessary to align domestic law with the Convention. For other related offenses, alignment can be achieved through interpretative measures. It is worth emphasizing that during the ratification process, even if domestic legislation must be refined, this should be achieved by raising thresholds for criminal liability, introducing provisions for remorse and reconciliation, and reducing the severity of penalties, thus minimizing inconsistencies with domestic law. Regarding cross-border evidence collection rules, the principle of state sovereignty must be upheld, but this does not imply outright rejection of all forms of cross-border evidence collection. Furthermore, there are no fundamental conflicts between China's criminal law and the Convention on issues such as the definition of property, corporate liability, or jurisdictional rules. These can be clarified through judicial interpretation in the future.
作者
李本灿
LI Bencan(Law school,Wuhan University,Wuhan Hubei 430072,China)
出处
《法学论坛》
北大核心
2025年第1期92-103,共12页
Legal Forum
基金
司法部年度课题青年项目“网络暴力的刑法规制问题研究”(22SFB4012)
教育部人文社科基地重大项目“协商性司法背景下人权保障制度的体系性构建”(22JJD820037)的阶段性成果。
关键词
网络犯罪
刑事定罪体系
跨境取证
联合国打击网络犯罪公约
cybercrime
criminalization system
cross-border evidence collection
un convention on countering cybercrime
