英文摘要

On the Protection of Human Rights in the Development ofNew Quality Productive Forces

HUANG Aijiao

Abstract： The development new quality productive forces constitutes a major task deployed by the Party and the state to promote high-quality development， as well as a significant practice “the state respecting and protecting human rights”. The advancement new quality productive forces holds strategic meanings for the long-term development China's human rights cause， encompassing critical human rights issues such as the relationship between productive forces and human rights， technology and human rights，economy and human rights，and the market economy system and human rights protection. Simultaneously， it presents emerging demands for human rights protection across multiple domains， including the right to development， social security rights， digital human rights， freedom rights， privacy rights，health rights， equality rights， education rights， and environmental rights. From a long-term perspective， the development new quality productive forces will actively promote the sustainable development human rights as a whole.In the short term， however， the technological revolution， innovative allocation production factors，and deep industrial transformation it entails may pose challenges to the realization rights for vulnerable groups. These challenges include threats to human subjectivity and dignity from biotechnology， infringements on the right to life and health， privacy violations and compromised rights to information and equality caused by generative artificial intelligence， as well as employment rights impacts resulting from high-tech applications and pround transformation traditional industries. To address human rights concerns in developing new quality productive forces and coordinate the relationship between technological progress and human rights protection， we should adhere to the principle that “the people's happy life is the most fundamental human right.” This requires upholding the people's principal status， maintaining human dignity， and implementing the people-centered human rights philosophy. Technological innovation， industrial innovation，and development model innovation should be treated as human rights practices， translating the development new quality productive forces into tangible improvements in people's well-being. It is imperative to innovate human rights protection mechanisms and promote coordinated advancement between developing new quality productive forces and human rights safeguards. On one hand， this ensures that developing new quality productive forces draws inexhaustible vitality from comprehensive human rights protection; on the other hand， it enables human rights to achieve higherquality and higher-level protection through this development. At the macro level， we should construct a national human rights protection mechanism compatible with the new type nationwide system. At the micro level， we need to establish differentiated and coordinated promotion mechanisms for human rights protection. Concurrently， targeted measures should be implemented to strengthen protection for vulnerable groups： creating employment opportunities and assisting laid-f workers in re-employment; improving social security systems to guarantee basic living standards for low-income groups; promoting educational equity to ensure fuller realization education rights for vulnerable populations; and advancing common prosperity with high quality to enable equitable sharing technological dividends.

KEYWORDS： new quality productive forces; human rights protection; rights vulnerable groups; high-quality development

The Theoretical Origins and Practical Mechanisms the People's Right to a HappyLife

LIANGTian'ai（ Law，Jilin）

YAOLu （Human Rights Institute， Jilin ）

Abstract： Happiness is not merely an abstract self-consciousness but a tangible objective existence.As one the most original concepts within the human rights discourse with Chinese characteristics， the proposition that “the people's happy life is the most fundamental human right” follows a trinitarian logic “l(fā)egitimacy-legality-reality” in its theoretical development. First， this proposition originates from the Marxist conception people's happiness，which emphasizes the dialectical unity material and spiritual well-being， the positive-sum interaction between self-happiness and the happiness others， and the harmonious symbiosis individual and communal welfare. It represents an innovative achievement in the localization Marxist human rights theory in China， reflecting the proundly people-centered character the socialist rule--law construction. Second， in terms its rights structure， the right to a happy life encompasses dual subjects： individual members society and the collective populace. Its objects include both material guarantees and behavioral safeguards，while its duty-bearers have evolved into a diversified network “state actors， non-state actors， and natural persons” through theoretical and practical advancements. The defining features dual rights subjects， composite rights objects，and pluralistic duty-bearers transcend traditional rights paradigms， building a distinct Chinese model. Finally， in practice， influenced by the nonlinear realization rights and the complexity social systems，the implementation the people's right to a happy life adheres to a tripartite pathway：“promotion and realization，”“prevention diminution，” and “remedy infringement.” The “promotion and realization” pathway follows a constructive logic rights formation， translating abstract values into actionable institutional arrangements through mechanisms that transforming normative aspirations into tangible outcomes， thereby paving the way for expanded developmental opportunities. The“prevention diminution” pathway operates under a defensive logic rights preservation， aiming to maximize societal well-being by eliminating factors that erode happiness， thereby enhancing and consolidating societal happiness.The “remedy infringement” pathway employs a restorative logic rights protection， strategically allocating resources to rehabilitate individuals’ capabilities to pursue happiness，ensuring the integrity this right amid complex crises. By embedding rights values into governance practices and dismantling structural barriers to rights realization， the progressive advancement the people's right to a happy life transforms social justice from a declarative ideal into tangible welfare gains and embodied personal experiences， thereby converting political-moral discourse into normative rights language. As a “bundle rights，”this concept integrates and transcends other human rights values; as a compatible construct， it bridges value conflicts among different rights subjects. Positioning it as the “the most fundamental human right” constitutes not only a theoretical innovation but also a practical framework with unifying and constructive significance.

KEYWORDS： the people; happy life; Marxist conception happiness; human rights

“The Second Combination\" and the Cultural Foundation Contemporary Chinese Human Rights Perspectives

WANG Shixin （Department Political Science and Law， Party the CPC Central Committee/National Academy Governance）

Abstract： As a common value humanity， the concept human rights is proundly inIuencea Dy speciic cuitural traaiions ana exnibits signiicant reiauvity. On one hand，cultural context is indispensable for the formation human rights concepts， with specific human rights perspectives emerging from specific cultural milieus. On the other hand， human rights concepts are products particular historical and social conditions， constrained by social formations and evolving with temporal developments. Therefore， nations should guide the human rights development through localized conceptual frameworks while seeking consensus through cultural diversity. The contemporary Chinese perspective on human rights has been progressively constructed through rational examination and disenchantment Western human rights concepts，while maintaining cultural openness to universal human rights and preserving the ethical essence China's excellent traditional culture. Confronted with new epochal demands， evolving cultural contexts， and the continuous improvement socialist institutions， China's human rights discourse must engage in creative transformation and innovative development traditional culture to better align with contemporary societal needs and expectations.“The Second Combination” has proundly shaped contemporary Chinese human rights perspectives， generating emblematic concepts in China's human rights discourse. First， the Marxist view human rights envisions a future ideal society eliminating class antagonisms and realizing comprehensive human development， where “equal human rights” exist within communities， which resonates with the traditional concept harmony that advocates seeking common ground while preserving differences， and pursuing balance in human relationships and human-nature interactions. The integration communist ideals human rights with the harmony concept has produced the vision \"a community with a shared future for mankind\"， transcending Western confrontational approaches to human rights and fering new pathways for global human rights governance. Second， the Marxist emphasis on the socially dependent nature human rights combines with the collectivist spirit inherent in traditional Chinese humanistic ethics， giving rise to the concept \"inclusive human rights\". This breakthrough overcomes the limitations individualistic human rights frameworks， manifesting the dialectical unity between individual rights and collective interests while expanding the connotation human rights. Third， the Marxist insistence on realizing human rights through material production practices that progressively achieve human liberation finds resonance with traditional Chinese practical wisdom. Their integration has forged a human rights practice prioritizing “the rights to subsistence and development as fundamental human rights”，driving China's human rights achievements that have attracted global attention. Under the guidance “the Second Combination”， contemporary Chinese human rights perspectives， rooted in pround cultural heritage， have revitalized the modern value traditional culture. By maintaining cultural subjectivity in human rights discourse while transcending the unilateralism and limitations Western paradigms， China has contributed its wisdom and strength to enriching human rights theory and advancing global human rights development.

KEYWORDS： The Second Combination; contemporary perspectives Chinese human rights; Marxist view on human rights; Chinese excellent traditional culture; China’s path human rights development

The Human Rights Dimension Artificial Intelligence Governance

LV Jiangao （ Law / Discipline Inspection and Supervision College， Nanjing Audit ）

Abstract： The development artificial intelligence （AI） has proundly impacted various categories human rights， including civil and political rights as well as economic， social， and cultural rights. However， human rights issues have yet to become a central topic in discussions on AI governance-a factual premise that must be confronted when emphasizing the human rights dimension AI governance. As AI governance concerns the shared destiny and collective well-being humanity， human rights objectives theoretically constitute the normative justification for integrating human rights into AI governance. These objectives permeate both the technological development AI and the ethical debates surrounding it， with the two aspects complementing and reinforcing each other. On one hand，AI technological advancement must be underpinned by human rights values，guided by human rights frameworks，and ensured through human rights accountability， thereby achieving the dialectical unity technical and value rationality. On the other hand， ethical debates on AI require grounding in human rights law to realize the organic integration ethics and jurisprudence. Human rights law aims to establish global standards and accountability mechanisms，utilizing robust institutional frameworks to monitor， promote， and protect compliance with human rights norms worldwide. This approach continuously enhances the safety， reliability， controllability，and fairness AI technologies while fostering collaborative efforts for effective governance.As an international framework for AI governance， human rights law constitutes an existing system encompassing international， regional， and domestic legal regimes. It possesses global legitimacy and serves as a universal language. In practice， human rights frameworks have demonstrated their practical strength in AI governance processes： they not only enhance international recognition and legitimacy but also provide procedural guidelines， accountability standards， and principled foundations to ensure the fulfillment international obligations in globalized technological development. The adoption human rights law in AI governance stems not only from its intrinsic value but also from the current international landscape that may hinder effective multilateral cooperation under new normative frameworks. The critical question now lies not in whether human rights can or should apply to AI， nor in exploring alternative approaches， but in how existing human rights law frameworks can be practically implemented in AI governance. For AI governance actors， reevaluating the societal impacts AI systems through established human rights responsibilities and norms is particularly crucial. While human rights frameworks have limitations and cannot resolve all challenges posed by AI， they fer a powerful value proposition--a human rights law-based approach to AI governance that safeguards human dignity.

KEYWORDS： AI governance; human rights; human rights law

Establishing Digital Human Rights： A Justification Framework Grounded in Human Rights Criteria

YU Qing （ Law， Wenzhou Technology）

Abstract： Digital human rights，as an emerging concept， have not yet been fully examined within the foundational frameworks human rights theory， leaving their legitimacy and normative status open to debate. The justification human rights typically follows two principal approaches： the substantive approach and the formal approach， which are demonstrated in three criteria the foundation humanity， the constraints on state power and the systemic inclusiveness. By adopting this framework， a systematic justification digital human rights may fer a compelling response to the question their theoretical and normative legitimacy. From the perspective the foundation humanity， digital human rights are not rooted in a novel form humanity--socalled“digital humanity”--but rather represent an extension the social attributes inherent to human beings in digital age.Although a digital society enables a two-way interaction between virtual and physical spaces， the essence humanity remains grounded in the totality social relations situated in the real world. From the perspective the constraints on state power， digital human rights embody the attributes human rights through the articulation a threetold obligation imposed on the State. First， the obligation to respect requires the State to refrain from arbitrarily infringing upon the digital rights citizens. Second， the obligation to protect mandates the State to shield individuals from third-party violations， particularly by enacting and enforcing legislation to prevent data abuse by technology companies. Third， the obligation to fulfill（or realize） underscores the State's responsibility to provide essential digital infrastructure and public services，as well as to bridge the digital divide， thereby ensuring citizens’basic survival and development within the digital realm. The criterion systemic inclusiveness is essential to assessing whether digital human rights can be recognized within the international human rights framework. Although the International Bill Human Rights does not explicitly provide for “digital human rights”，Articles 12 and 19 the Universal Declaration Human Rights fer a jurisprudential basis for data-related rights.Further developments， such as the Resolution on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age adopted by the UN and Article 8 Charter Fundamental Rights the European Union， have elaborated state obligations and affirmed the human rights dimension data protection. Additionally， the constitutions over 30 countries have incorporated digital rights into their catalogues fundamental rights. For example， the Constitution Mexico sets limitations on governmental data processing，while the Portuguese Charter on Human Rights in the Digital Age systematically enumerates emerging rights， including the right to digital autonomy and the right to be forgotten. These developments demonstrate that digital human rights possess a normative foundation for integration into the existing international human rights system. However， the recognition digital human rights should not be conflated with their classification as “fourth-generation human rights”.In light the inter-generational evolution human rights， digital human rights have not yet produced a rupture or renewal in terms the rights-holders， duty-bearers，or the fundamental relational structures underpinning human rights. The fourth-generation human rights framework--ten characterized by the “power-rights” paradigm--has not fundamentally transformed the core logic the previous three generations rights. In essence， digital power represents a continuation and reconfiguration traditional forms power-- namely， political power， economic power， and coercive power--within the digital domain. Accordingly， digital human rights are better understood as an extension and deepening the existing human rights architecture，rather than a paradigmatic shift in the inter-generational trajectory human rights development.

KEYWORDS： digital human rights; digital humanity; state obligations; the fourthgeneration human rights

The Human Rights Turn in Climate Litigation and the Response Strategies Transnational Corporations

CAO Xia （Faculty Law， Macau Science and Technology）

SUNRui （Faculty Laws， CollegeLondon）

Abstract： In recent years， as climate change has exerted increasing pressure on the human living environment， climate litigation has undergone a significant shift-from tort claims primarily concerned with the protection property interests to those concerned with the protection personality interests.This human rights-oriented turn in climate litigation has expanded the scope defendants from states and public authorities to include transnational corporations， and such claims have increasingly appeared in domestic tort law practice.A landmark case is Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc.， in which the Hague District Court and the Court Appeal， in responding to allegations that Shell’s “business model posed a threat to the objectives the Paris Agreement”and “endangered human rights and lives”，established the necessity for Shell to adopt emissions reduction targets by “renewing” aspects law， broadening the interpretation the duty care in domestic law and invoking extensively international human rights norms--many which are “st law” in nature. Ultimately， Shell's failure to set adequate emission reduction targets was held to constitute a breach its climate-related human rights obligations.From a doctrinal perspective， this case represents a significant breakthrough in the domestic application international law， as it blurs the traditional boundaries between the private and public spheres. From the standpoint judicial practice effect， it serves as a concrete example climate-related human rights litigation against transnational corporations， thereby enhancing the prospects success in similar future cases. Simultaneously， the case imposes heightened expectations on transnational corporations in terms their responsibilities to address climate change. Nevertheless， the application this legal “renewal” approach remains fraught with uncertainties， which are primarily reflected in the following aspects： First， the application human rights norms as interpretive tools within domestic legal systems encounters significant challenges due to the structural mismatch between international human rights standards and existing domestic tort liability framework. Second， the traditional human rights framework fers limited guidance on the allocation responsibility for climate change harms that transcend national borders， thereby hindering judicial fairness in atributing climate-related obligations. Third， the complexity inherent in climate litigation and human rights argumentation places considerable pressure on the judiciary， thereby constraining the scope for judicial activism. In view these challenges， transnational corporations should closely examine the trend human rights turn in climate litigation， recognize the uncertainties surrounding the use human rights argumentation in relevant cases， and formulate robust， forward-looking response strategies. In particular， when making business decisions， transnational corporations should develop a comprehensive understanding both domestic and international emission reduction obligations，as well as industry-specific standards，in order to delineate the boundary between the protection human rights and the pursuit legitimate economic interests. They should actively fulfill their “human rights due diligence obligations”by integrating emission reduction planning， risk prevention and control， and information disclosure into their operational frameworks. Furthermore， they must remain vigilant regarding developments in the application domestic laws in host countries， especially the potential expansion corporate climate liability through the interpretive use human rights norms，and take preemptive measures to mitigate the risk future litigation.

KEYWORDS： climate litigation; transnational corporations; human rights argumentation; response to litigation risk

Exploring Sexual Harassment as a Tort from the Perspective Right to Bodily Integrity

SHENChanghui （，Sun Yat-sen）

Abstract： There remains no scholarly consensus on the definition and scope legal interest infringed by acts sexual harassment， with the debate primarily centered on whether such conduct violates the right to sexual autonomy or the right to bodily integrity. The former presents a dual-level challenge. On the one hand， the identification sexual harassment as a tort based on sexual intent or expression ten leads to a conceptual ambiguity. This results in a double bind： either the scope protection is unduly narrowed--mplying that only females with certain characteristics are vulnerable to harassment--thereby restricting the extension sexual harassment and the range protected subjects; or， alternatively， the concept is overly generalized， framing sexual harassment merely as a sensitive 1ssue between “men and women\"，which Wwill not be given serious attention it deserves. On the other hand， conflating the concepts autonomy and consent within the same analytical framework contributes to the entrenchment stereotypes. This approach redirects the focus scrutiny away from the unlawfulness the perpetrator's conduct and toward an evaluation whether the victim's behavior constitutes implied consent， thereby reinforcing discrimination against the victim. Fundamentally， the infringement sexual harassment lies in the individual's subjective experience and feeling--manifested both physically and emotionally--which is inherently passive and non-consensual in nature. The root cause the lack universal recognition the latter-the right to bodily integrity--ies in the objectification the body within the legal framework shaped by the philosophy consciousness. This possessive subject theory， grounded in the traditional mind-body and subject-object dualism，restricts the scope bodily integrity to the physical integrity the body as a mere object. On this basis， sexual harassment involving physical contact is ten deemed not to constitute a violation the right to bodily integrity if it does not result in physical harm. Conversely， acts sexual harassment that do not involve physical touching are similarly excluded from protection under this narrow interpretation. Such a view， however， has been challenged by the modern philosophical turn toward embodiment， which--under the theory the relational subject--conceives the body as a unified whole that integrates both the perceiver and the perceived， dissolving the traditional separation between mind and body. Building on this perspective，the concept bodily integrity has evolved from mere physical integrity to embodiment integrity. Accordingly， the right to bodily integrity now encompasses both the right to be free from fensive physical contact and the right to mental tranquility-- an interest that is inseparable from one's embodied existence.Article 1010 the Civil Code the P.R.C. adopts a gender-neutral model private law protection against sexual harassment and locates it in the chapter on the rights inviolability and integrity person within the Book Personality Rights. This legislative choice reflects the influence the modern philosophical turn toward embodiment and the integrated conception the subject. Under this framework， sexual harassment involving physical conduct constitutes a violation the right to be free from fensive physical contact， while non-physical or virtual forms sexual harassment implicate the right to mental integrity--both which are encompassed within the broader right to the body. This dual structure affirms the protection the personal dignity and respect the embodied subject. By clarifying the gender-neutral personality rights and interests underlying the tort sexual harassment， this approach，with an emphasis on the embodied subject， contributes to dismantling the“power structure”in Western tort theories sexual harassment that has been extensively criticized. It also helps to mitigate risks reverse discrimination and reduce gender antagonism， thereby paving the way for the development a new theoretical framework and remedial system for addressing sexual harassmentasatort.

KEYWORDS： sexual harassment as a tort; sexual autonomy; the philosophy the embodied subject; the right to be free from fensive physical contact; the right to mental integrity

Improving the Mechanisms for Fulfilling Live Streaming Platforms' Cyber-security Obligations to ProtectMinors

ZHU Yuxin （Law ，Beihang）

Abstract： Since the emergence live streaming platforms， online safety risks for minors have become increasingly prevalent. Issues such as the inducement underage users to engage with inappropriate content and their provision excessive monetary rewards have revealed significant deficiencies in platforms’ compliance review and protective mechanisms.Based on an empirical study 15 live streaming platforms with over 1O million users， this study finds that legal requirements concerning minors’ participation in live streaming have not been effectively implemented at the level access mechanism. Although the law clearly prohibits minors under the age 16 from becoming live streamers，many platforms avoid regulatory compliance by blurring the line between“streamers”and “viewers”，which has resulted in three modes variation： outright prohibition， guardian-approved exceptions， and generalized restrictions. In this respect， the lenient access policy premised on “guardian approval” directly contravenes higher-level law. Moreover， the absence a dedicated review mechanism for minors whose primary source income is labor has led to a tension between the right to occupational freedom and the legal imperative to protect minors. During the operational phase， technical governance also suffers from significant shortcomings： youth mode， parental control functions， and intelligent identification technologies have proven ineffective due to inherent design flaws. The content ferings in youth mode are highly homogenized， with delayed updates high-quality resources. On some platforms， only playback content is available， leading to diminished user engagement. The parental control functions rely heavily on guardians’ cooperation and are undermined by technical vulnerabilities and risks privacy breaches--for example， the collection highly sensitive personal data without adequate security safeguards. Although intelligent identification technologies have enhanced the efficiency identity verification， the use dynamic portrait algorithms lacks explicit legal authorization and contravenes the special provisions on the handling sensitive personal information under the Personal Information Protection Law the P.R.C. The readability privacy agreements remains generally poor， and dedicated provisions for the protection minors’privacy are ten insuficient. The supervision and enforcement framework is marked by fragmentation， with significant inconsistencies in how platforms apply their internal rules to violations involving minors. Similar infringements may lead to markedly different penalties across platforms--from the recovery illicit gains to permanent account bans--rendering the so-called “strictest standards” functionally meaningless. Furthermore， algorithmic governance has not yet been meaningfully integrated into a multidimensional co-regulation mechanism. Special protection reporting systems tend to be perfunctory， cross-platform regulatory arbitrage is widespread，and a comprehensive，closed-loop system for risk identification，behavioral analysis，and tiered intervention has not yet been established. To address the aforementioned structural conflicts， it is imperative to establish a governance framework that synergizes law， technology，and society. During the access phase，a dynamic identity verification system combined with a two-dimensional authentication framework--encompassing both age and behavioral capacity--can resolve conflicts related to qualification restrictions. During the operation phase， the functional core the youth mode should be restructured through age-specific content optimization and enhanced privacy protection technologies. In the supervision phase， the effectiveness enforcement can be bolstered by upgrading algorithmic governance and fostering a synergistic mechanism involving government authorities，platforms，and third-party actors. The integration these three phases closes existing legal enforcement gaps， facilitates a paradigm shift from passive compliance to active empowerment， and provides comprehensive and end-to-end support for safeguarding minors' rights and interests online.

KEYWORDS： minors; cybersecurity protection responsibility; operational regulation compliance review