《反不正当竞争法》网络条款的反思与解释 以类型化原理为中心  

The Internet Unfair Competition Clause as an Unsuccessful Product of Legislative Categorization

作　　者：蒋舸[1] Jiang Ge

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院

出　　处：《中外法学》2019年第1期180-202,共23页Peking University Law Journal

基　　金：司法部课题"新型不正当竞争行为的去道德化规制"(项目编号:16SFB3036)成果

摘　　要：《反不正当竞争法》引入的网络条款旨在评价网络竞争行为的正当性。但该条款在解释论上面临诸多困境,因此难堪重任。困境的根源在于方法论研究之欠缺,即立法者未曾反省类型化原理就盲目选择了案例群类型化的修法进路。类型化的合理性基础在于通过更精细的认知模型来降低决策成本,因此只有当建立精细认知模型的社会收益高于成本时,类型化方为恰当。网络条款并不满足该条件。我们应当对网络条款予以限缩解释,将其适用范围控制在文本无歧义的范围内。针对网络条款无法评价的网络竞争行为,首先应当对既有的成熟类型化条款予以功能主义解释;其次应在必要时审慎制定新类型化规则;最后可以承认适用一般条款评价少量行为的合理性。An internet clause was introduced into the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in 2017. The legislator wished to provide the courts with more detailed rules regarding online competition. However, the clause bears serious flaws largely because the legislator has overlooked the rationale of categorization. A new category in law is desirable only when the social benefit of building a more concrete cogn让ive model exceeds its social cost. Legislators should investigate the optimal level of categorization before introducing a new category, and choose modelling variables that are frequent , significant as well as clear. Quite the opposite, the internet clause is based on variables that are transient, insubstantial and vague, representing an inefficient cognitive model. That is why it fails. A more promising approach of categorization would be to fully utilize the existing rules. New rules should be introduced carefully. Compared to inventing troublesome new rules, relying on the general clause could be a better solution.

关 键 词：不正当竞争 一般条款 网络条款 类型化 认知模型 

分 类 号：D922.294[政治法律—经济法学]