人工智能法律规制的第三条道路  

The Third Way of Legal Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

作　　者：许可[1] Xu Ke

机构地区：[1]对外经济贸易大学法学院,北京100029

出　　处：《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》2025年第1期59-71,共13页Science of Law:Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目(23&ZD155)“数字经济治理体系法治化研究”。

摘　　要：随着人工智能技术的迅猛发展,各国针对人工智能的法律规制日渐强化,但制度共识远未形成,理论根基尚待探求。立足于科技规制的两大经典范式——后果论与道义论,人工智能规制实践被化约为“基于风险的规制”与“基于权利的规制”,但两者固有的缺陷亦日益显现。为克服其缺陷,一种融合两大范式的新路径即“规则后果主义”,从“社会福祉”和“规则”出发,通过坚持与重塑“以人为本”原则体系,承认并重构“分类分级”操作框架,不仅能够助力中国向世界贡献富有道德感召力的人工智能规制原则,还能为各国提供可互操作的人工智能规制规则,从而在欧美立法之外开拓出《人工智能法》发展的第三条道路,并为人工智能的全球治理奠定坚实的伦理根基。With the emergence of artificial intelligence(AI), the legal regulation of AI by various countries has become increasingly rich, but a consensus on the system has not yet been formed, and the theoretical foundation still needs to be explored. Based on the two classic paradigms of technology regulation-consequentialism and deontological ethics, AI regulation practice is not only reduced to “risk-based regulation” and “rights-based regulation”, but the inherent shortcomings of both are also revealed. To overcome their defects, a new path that integrates the two paradigms, namely “rule consequentialism”, starts from “social welfare” and “rules”. By adhering to and reshaping the “people-oriented” principal system, acknowledging and reconstructing the “classification and grading” operational framework, it not only helps China contribute to the world AI regulation principles with strong moral appeal but also provides interoperable AI regulation rules among countries. Thus, it paves a third way for China's “Artificial Intelligence Law” beyond European and American legislation and lays a solid ethical foundation for the global governance of artificial intelligence.

关 键 词：后果论 道义论 规则后果主义 人工智能规制 

分 类 号：D922.1[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]