With the rapid development of the information age, especially the in-depth integration of Internet technology and the judiciary, China's Internet Court came into being, which is a historic innovation in the history of human justice.
To follow up and inspect the whole process, summarize the experience of its theoretical innovation, practical innovation and system innovation in a timely manner, study the major theoretical problems that need to be solved urgently, propose its development strategy, and contribute Chinese judicial wisdom and judicial plans to the world. major subject.
1. The era gave birth to Internet courts
(1) Practical necessity
When the wheel of human history traveled to the end of the 20th century, Internet technology was born, and its development in the world was unstoppable.
According to statistics, as of January 2022, the number of Internet users worldwide has grown to 4.95 billion.
The Internet enables massive amounts of information to be exchanged globally at almost no cost. The connection between people, people and things, and things and things has penetrated more and more deeply into all aspects of human life. , have undergone unprecedented revolutionary changes.
The invention of the Internet, just like the steam engine, set off a magnificent world revolution, and it has become a part of the creativity of human civilization.
There is no doubt that the Internet has brought great convenience to human beings, but at the same time, it is inevitably accompanied by various online transaction disputes, online infringements, and cybercrimes.
Some companies even prepare a special budget for compensation for losing a lawsuit in their business plan, and calculate the collision with the law and social order as a company cost.
The FBI said in a report that victims of cybercrime and internet fraud reported losses to the agency to $4.2 billion in 2020, an increase of about 20 percent from 2019.
The development of the Internet in my country and its interaction with the society are changing with each passing day.
According to the statistics of the Ministry of Commerce, my country's e-commerce transaction volume has increased from 21.8 trillion yuan in 2015 to 37.2 trillion yuan in 2020, and the national online retail sales will reach 11.8 trillion yuan in 2020. my country has become the world's largest for 8 consecutive years. Online retail market.
By December 2021, the scale of netizens will reach 1.032 billion, the Internet penetration rate will reach 73.0%, the scale of online shopping users will reach 842 million, the scale of online takeaway users will reach 544 million, the scale of online office users will reach 469 million, and the scale of online medical users will reach 298 million. New formats and new models of the digital economy are emerging one after another, and the total amount of the digital economy ranks second in the world.
Malicious cyberattacks are also common. In 2021, cyber reporting departments at all levels across the country will receive a total of 166.224 million cybersecurity-related reports, and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information sharing platform will receive a total of 10,288,799 cybersecurity incidents, and collect and organize information systems. There were 143,319 security vulnerabilities, including 40,498 high-risk vulnerabilities.
The impact of the Internet on justice is equally huge and profound.
According to the Judicial Big Data Special Report "Characteristics and Trends of Online Shopping Contract Dispute Cases (2017.1-2020.6)" issued by the Supreme People's Court, from January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2020, courts at all levels across the country received new online shopping in the first instance The number of contract dispute cases totaled 49,000.
On the one hand, the people's courts have closely followed the development of the Internet era, deeply integrated modern scientific and technological means with judicial activities, and vigorously promoted the construction of smart courts supported by the Internet, big data, artificial intelligence, and blockchain. Investigation, trial, service, and various litigation services are all conducted online.
This new Internet judicial model, which conducts online trials for offline cases, has the advantages of convenience, speed, high efficiency, and low cost.
On the other hand, various Internet-related cases are numerous, wide-ranging, large-scale, and prone to occur, and most of them take place in cyberspace, which is completely different from disputes and crimes in physical space. ”, non-direct contact, and litigation activities are also carried out “virtually” in cyberspace.
In the face of this brand-new case and litigation method, the judicial theories, established litigation procedures, and allocated resources based on industrial civilization and based on physical space behavior appear to be stretched, lacking in supply, and even difficult. Be applicable.
For example, the establishment and effective time, "place of signing" and "place of performance" of a contract signed online do not "consist" with the contract signed in physical space. The seriousness of the court trial and the protection of the parties' litigation rights and other basic principles and rules have created impacts and challenges.
In addition, there are more and more transnational Internet crimes, and the whole world is facing the embarrassment and torture of "the judiciary has sovereignty and crime knows no borders".
Continue to use traditional courts with distinct characteristics of industrial civilization and physical space, and judges armed with traditional judicial concepts and ways of thinking, in accordance with traditional judicial theories and applying traditional procedural rules, to "virtually" try cases that occur in cyberspace online. , is out of date.
The era calls for an Internet court with brand-new characteristics that adapts to the needs of the Internet era, applies new litigation rules.
(2) Theoretical basis and theoretical guidance
The economic base determines the superstructure, which is one of the basic principles of Marxism.
Marx profoundly pointed out, "The main mode of economic production and exchange in each historical era, and the social structure that inevitably arises from it, are the foundation on which the political and spiritual history of that era is established, and only from this foundation, This history can be explained.”
The Marxist view of law further scientifically explains the inherent relationship between law and economy, and profoundly points out that the nature, content and development of law depend in the final analysis on the economic basis of its existence, that is, "the relationship between law is just like the form of the state, which cannot be They cannot be understood in terms of themselves, nor can they be understood in terms of the so-called general development of the human spirit, which, on the contrary, are rooted in material life relations".
The same is true for the judicial system and judicial system. In the age of agricultural civilization, the level of productivity was low, the purpose of production was basically self-sufficiency rather than exchange, and social interactions and various disputes were relatively rare.
There was no specialized judicial profession in China's feudal society for a long time, and administrative officials tried cases for this reason.
Western countries, such as the more typical Britain, have a long history of aristocratic judicial tradition. As early as the Anglo-Saxon period, the aristocracy jointly exercised judicial power with the king through the Council of Sages. It was not until the judicial reform in 1873 that the foundation for the modern development of its law was laid, which reshaped the legal system. court system.
In the era of industrial civilization, the level of productivity has been greatly improved. The industrial revolution characterized by large-scale machine production has greatly improved the ability of material production. Commodity production for the purpose of exchange has strongly promoted the development of social exchanges. increased, and the courts became necessary as independent judicial bodies.
Moreover, large-scale industrial production leads to a high concentration of population, which greatly promotes the formation and development of cities.
Correspondingly, the establishment of courts, jurisdiction of litigation cases, etc., based on the value orientation of convenience, special consideration is given to regional division factors.
However, when human beings move from a society based on material communication to a society based on information, a large number of social behaviors are transferred from physical space to cyberspace, and the economic foundation has undergone great changes, and a superstructure adapted to it has been constructed—— A new judicial system and court system became inevitable.
Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, under the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the judicial organs have conscientiously implemented Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, accurately grasped the pulse of the times, and firmly grasped the new issues of the rule of law brought about by the technological revolution, especially the Internet, and vigorously Judicial reform has been advanced, and a new model of Internet courts has been gradually created.
First, the people-centered development ideology defines the core value orientation for the establishment and development of Internet courts.
Taking the people as the center is the fundamental position of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, as well as the fundamental foothold of Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law.
Entering the new era, the people's demands for democracy, rule of law, fairness, justice, security, and environment are growing day by day.
Actively respond to the new demands and expectations of the people, and study and solve outstanding problems in practice. This is not only a source of strength to promote the high-quality development of the rule of law, but also a concrete implementation of the legislation, the implementation of the legislation, It is an inevitable requirement for the whole process of law enforcement, justice, law-abiding and other fields.
Since the middle of the 20th century, in many countries, the litigation costs are too high, the litigation process is long, and the social cost is increasing.
In particular, online transactions and other behaviors are originally within reach and can be reached in an instant, but litigation in case of disputes is often a long journey, exhausting and protracted.
The purpose of justice is to realize social justice, and judicial crisis will inevitably lead to justice crisis.
The modern judicial adjudication system should be accessible to the public both in theory and in practice.
The extensive application of information technology and the Internet in the judicial field has given birth to the birth of the Internet Court, which is closer to justice in theory, practice, procedure, and substance, greatly promotes social fairness, and realizes the value goal of justice for the people.
Second, important theories on innovative development provide an inexhaustible impetus for the establishment and development of Internet courts.
General Secretary Xi Jinping has made a series of important expositions on innovation and development, pointing out that innovation is a major proposition of the current era. To enhance innovation and cultivate innovative thinking, innovation has always been an important force to promote the development of a country and a nation.
Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, innovation has become the soul of the spirit of the new era, reflected in various fields such as economy, politics, culture, and society.
The so-called innovation is to achieve new leaps and goals through conscious activities, breaking through or surpassing traditional conventional theories, ideas, models, rules, technologies, etc.
This process is not a natural process of accumulation and development of quantitative changes, but rather a need to exert human subjective initiative to promote creation.
In recent years, online litigation, Internet justice, smart courts, Internet courts, etc., have all been achieved through innovative efforts. Among them, Internet courts have broken through traditional judicial models, litigation principles, procedural paradigms, and substantive rules. sex, iconic meaning.
This is the successful practice of the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping's important exposition on innovation and development in the judicial field.
Finally, the important idea of building a strong Internet country points out the basic path for the establishment and development of Internet courts.
General Secretary Xi Jinping attaches great importance to network security and informatization construction, and has put forward a series of new ideas, new viewpoints and new judgments, and formed an important thought on network power.
In today's world, network information technology is iteratively updated and fully integrated into social production and life, profoundly changing the global economic pattern, interest pattern, and security pattern.
It is necessary to improve the digital economy governance system, improve laws, regulations and policy systems, improve systems and mechanisms, and improve the modernization level of my country's digital economy governance system and governance capabilities.
In recent years, technologies such as the Internet, big data, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence have changed rapidly, profoundly changing all aspects of economic and social life. The unprecedented development of the digital economy is becoming a key force in changing the global competition landscape.
A series of important expositions by General Secretary Xi Jinping not only pointed out the direction for my country's digital economy governance, but also pointed out the application of Internet, artificial intelligence, blockchain and other technologies in the judicial field, and directly served the modernization of the digital economy governance system and governance capacity for the judiciary. It pointed out the basic path for the establishment of Internet courts.
(3) Early exploration
In recent years, Zhejiang, especially Hangzhou, has a relatively developed information economy such as e-commerce and Internet finance. A large proportion of the country's online retail, cross-border e-commerce, and inter-enterprise e-commerce transactions rely on its e-commerce platform. Therefore, a large number of Internet disputes are involved. to the court.
In order to effectively respond to this new situation, in April 2015, the Zhejiang Higher People's Court decided to conduct pilot projects in three basic-level courts, namely Xihu, Binjiang and Yuhang, to handle online payment, online copyright, and online transaction disputes respectively. Court of Appeal.
In August of the same year, "Zhejiang Court E-Commerce Online Court" was launched, and 11 more courts in the province settled on the platform.
The main features of the court are as follows: First, the whole process is online. In the past, only the Internet was used to assist litigation, and the whole process of the court was carried out online, and the litigation activities were recorded in real time. The second is multi-platform connection, making full use of existing e-commerce platforms Technical advantages and data resources to achieve seamless connection and data sharing; the third is structured guidelines, which comprehensively structure litigation matters such as selection of jurisdictional courts, litigation claims, calculation of compensation amounts, and citation of legal basis, and parties generally only need to check the options. Processes such as prosecution can be completed.
These innovative practices of deep integration of litigation and Internet technology provide a basic model for the subsequent establishment and operation of Internet courts.
At the same time, restricted by the existing litigation system and mechanism, the court is also facing development difficulties.
First, the degree of professionalism is not high. Judges who try online dispute cases in online courts also try traditional civil and commercial cases offline. The concepts and rules of the two types of online and offline cases are different, making it difficult for judges to have both sides.
Second, the litigation system and rules are not suitable. Internet-related trials pose challenges to the original jurisdictional principles based on physical space, and it is easy to generate jurisdictional disputes; the rules for review and identification of electronic evidence need to be further clarified; absenteeism cannot be conducted in online courts trial; the validity of electronic delivery of legal documents lacks legal basis; whether electronic payment orders and urging procedures can apply for property preservation is unclear.
The third is that information barriers restrict online trials. There are no channels for information exchange and sharing between courts and public security, industry and commerce, and other agencies. It is impossible to effectively verify the authenticity of the litigants’ identities and the address for online trial services, and it is impossible to retrieve collections, storage, and traces in a timely manner. Electronic evidence in industrial and commercial sectors.
Although the e-commerce online court has played an early exploratory role, it must break the bottleneck of development, break through the limitations of its organizational structure, policies and laws, and space constraints, and further build new judicial organizations, mechanisms, and rules.
In order to meet the needs of Internet development and judicial practice, in June 2017, the Central Comprehensive Deepening Reform Committee reviewed and approved the "Plan on the Establishment of Hangzhou Internet Court", and the Hangzhou Internet Court was established.
In July 2018, the Central Committee for Comprehensively Deepening Reform reviewed and approved the "Plan for the Addition of Beijing Internet Court and Guangzhou Internet Court", and Beijing Internet Court and Guangzhou Internet Court were established.
In April 2021, with the approval of the Supreme People's Court, the Chengdu Internet Court was established.
To sum up, the Internet has built a virtual world that is completely different from the physical world. The behaviors that occur in this time and space, including disputes and crimes, are completely new forms that are different from any stage in the history of human civilization.
The traditional courts, which have matured in the physical space of industrial civilization, hear disputes in the physical space and disputes in the cyberspace at the same time. The two "worlds" have both sides, in the concept of judges, judicial theories, judicial forms, litigation procedures and Its rules and other aspects, it is difficult to be comprehensive.
The Internet era needs a judicial form and a team of judges that match, fit and adapt to it.
In the long run, not only is Internet technology changing with each passing day, but also the emerging "metaverse" is likely to be even more surprising.
All aspects of human life may be carried out in virtual space, which requires both direct regulation by law and guidance of a new type of judicial demonstration that fits with it.
The establishment of Internet courts has its inevitability, necessity and feasibility.
2. Practice and Institutional Innovation of the "Two-Line Litigation" Model
The establishment and practice of Internet courts have achieved remarkable results.
Over the past few years, Hangzhou Internet Court, Beijing Internet Court and Guangzhou Internet Court have accepted more than 350,000 cases and concluded more than 330,000 cases. The online payment rate of litigation fees is over 93.8% (100% in some courts), and the online trial rate is 93%. Above (99.9% and 99.82% in two courts), the average trial time of a case is about 25-38 minutes, the average trial period is about 37-70 days, the electronic delivery rate of judgment documents is 82.4%-92.4%, and the automatic fulfillment rate is the highest up to 93.6%.
Among them, the Guangzhou Internet Court has accepted 156,179 cases and concluded 143,660 cases since its establishment three years ago. The average number of cases concluded by judges is 4,105 (the average number of cases closed by local traditional grass-roots courts is about 1,500); 2,122 cases have been appealed, with an appeal rate of 1.63% (local traditional grass-roots courts). The court appeal rate was 13.1%); 2 cases were retrialed, and the retrial rate was 0.0015% (the retrial rate of the local traditional grassroots courts was 0.067%); 32 letters and visits were handled, accounting for 0.2% of the cases (the local traditional grassroots courts handled letters and visits accumulatively The average trial duration is about 25 minutes, and the average trial period is about 37 days (the average trial duration of local traditional grassroots courts is about 66 minutes, and the average trial period is about 121 days).
In response to the characteristics of cyberspace behaviors that are different from physical space behaviors, the three Internet courts have implemented a series of innovations.
(1) Innovative case jurisdiction system
Case jurisdiction is an important basic system in the traditional litigation system.
Summarizing the previous practice and exploration experience, in September 2018, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts", clarifying the disputes over online shopping contracts, Internet service contract disputes, Internet financial loan contract disputes, Internet copyright disputes, Internet disputes 11 types of cases, including domain name ownership, infringement and contract disputes, Internet infringement disputes, Internet product liability disputes, Internet public interest litigation cases, Internet administrative management disputes, and other Internet civil and administrative cases designated by higher-level people's courts, are under the jurisdiction of Internet courts.
Compared with the traditional litigation jurisdiction system, the Internet court case jurisdiction system has the following characteristics: First, it is different from the jurisdiction of traditional courts using Internet technology to try cases.
Cases under the jurisdiction of traditional courts include both offline physical space cases and online cyberspace cases. Both types of cases are tried online according to the same litigation rules (some work is also conducted online).
The Internet Court, on the other hand, only has jurisdiction over online dispute cases, implements separate litigation rules, and forms a "two-line litigation" model for online disputes to be tried online, which fully reflects the characteristics of the Internet Court.
Second, it is different from specialized courts.
Specialized courts fully reflect their "speciality", accepting only a few types of cases in a certain category or in a specific field, highlighting their professional characteristics.
The Internet Court has comprehensive jurisdiction, and all civil and administrative cases arising from Internet acts are accepted (it may be expanded in the future), which is characterized by "the times".
The third is that the objects of traditional litigation jurisdiction are all acts that take place in physical space and have a clear location, mainly based on the principle of jurisdiction where the legal act occurs and the place of residence of the parties, such as "the place where the contract is signed", "the place where the contract is performed", "the tortious act" The place of occurrence", "the location of the defendant", etc.
However, behaviors that occur in the Internet space generally do not have a clear and specific location, so it is difficult to fully apply the jurisdiction principle of the place where the traditional litigation behavior occurs, and only a new jurisdiction system can be created.
(2) Innovative courts and trial models
In response to the characteristics of "two-line litigation", Internet courts have created a variety of online virtual court trial models.
The author summarizes it as follows: (1) Network standard court trial, that is, a space of about 30 square meters is set up in the physical space. There is only a trial table, and there are no on-site seats and auditoriums for the plaintiff and the defendant in a traditional courtroom. Litigation activities on the Internet.
This type of online court is relatively standard and commonly used.
(2) Pseudo court trial, that is, digital real-time synthesis using technologies such as virtual three-dimensional scenes created by computers, and virtual courts that do not exist in physical space on the Internet, including scenes and various facilities such as gavel, etc., are technically synthesized , has the effect of lifelike and strong three-dimensional effect, and the litigation activities of judges and parties are carried out in the courtroom synthesized by this technology and quite realistic.
(3) Trial in square cabin court, that is, in a special movable "cabin" covering an area of about 3 square meters, only a judge's bench and a computer are set up, and other court scenes are virtual, mainly for small claims, simple Case trial, evidence exchange, mediation, etc.
(4) Asynchronous court trial, that is, both parties use their spare time to participate in litigation activities at different times, at different places, and asynchronously. All aspects of the litigation can be logged on the platform at the time they choose within the specified time limit and completed in an asynchronous manner. .
(5) Trial in a desk court, that is, the desk of the judge's office and the trial table are combined into one, and the judge conducts litigation activities with both parties in the cyberspace in front of the desk.
(6) Home court trial, that is, to load the virtual court background in the internet trial system.
The lightweight portrait segmentation model based on deep learning does not require traditional green screen matting technology, and replaces the judge's home scene with the court background to properly ensure the seriousness of the court trial.
At present, such court hearing activities are only applicable to the special needs of judges to hear cases at home during the new crown pneumonia epidemic, and must be approved by the president.
In addition, very few cases, if necessary, are still being heard in traditional physical space courts.
Among them, the above-mentioned 1-5 kinds of courts are independently selected by judges according to the situation of the case, and there are no certain rules.
Obviously, this change of court and trial mode is not only a change in the method of trial, but also involves a series of major changes in the trial system and judicial concept, which fully reflects the characteristics and needs of "two-line litigation".
(3) Deep integration of innovation and new technologies
The deep integration of Internet technology and judicial activities is the most notable feature of Internet courts, and it is also a sign that human judicial activities have entered a new era.
The three Internet courts have not only developed intelligent supervision and management platforms such as automatic generation of judgment documents, push of judgments in similar cases, early warning of judgment risk deviation, etc., and built a three-dimensional judgment supervision system, but also explored and established a blockchain governance service system. , promote the use of 5G technology, etc.
Among them, the Beijing Internet Court and dozens of units jointly initiated the establishment of the Changan Chain Ecological Alliance by using the first domestically self-controllable blockchain software and hardware technology system "Changan Chain" developed by Beijing, and became the first batch to pass the National Cyberspace Administration of China. One of the registered blockchains, access management specifications and technical specifications, provide a useful reference for the construction of blockchain specifications.
The Beijing Internet Court also leads the construction of the "Tianping Chain" judicial blockchain platform, with one-second verification of on-chain evidence, one-click execution of smart contracts for filing, one-click intelligent freeze and deduction of pre-litigation mediation agreements, internal and external network interaction, and cloud storage technology to ensure security and sustainable use of judicial data.
Hangzhou Internet Court pioneered the asynchronous trial mode, breaking through the boundaries of time and space, allowing the parties to have sufficient time to consult lawyers to obtain professional opinions, and to express more fully. Writers upload works, save evidence, prevent and punish online plagiarism; build a fair and secure data utilization order, build a "Netcom Law Chain" smart credit ecosystem with full-link credibility and full-contact witness, and solve some problems in electronic data authentication. More than 194 million certificates are stored; the “ZHI system” is developed for all-element trial of copyright disputes, and the first judicial application of “knowledge map + artificial intelligence” is realized, which realizes the confirmation and storage of blockchain certificates, and the intelligent comparison of infringement; the first “E-Chain Cloud Mirror” The intelligent execution analysis system uses the "static data + dynamic behavior" analysis mode to deeply match the execution measures.
Among them, "ZHI system" and "E-chain cloud mirror" system have obtained five national patents and copyright registration certificates.
(4) Innovating the rules of substantive adjudication
According to the principle of the rule of law, the court is obliged not to refuse a judgment.
In view of the fact that most of the new types of online cases have no direct and specific legal basis, the three Internet courts, in accordance with the general principles of law, pay attention to the characteristics of online behavior, comprehensively consider the balance of the interests of all parties and social interests, and respect the spirit of judicial laws. A series of "two-line litigation" substantive adjudication rules have been created, which not only resolves disputes, but also makes up for the lack of legislative lag, and also accumulates experience for future relevant legislation.
First, in regulating the development of new forms of Internet business, adhere to the principle of balance of interests, confirm that the platform has not taken infringement prevention measures commensurate with its benefits, and should bear joint tort liability for acts that infringe on the intellectual property rights of others; e-commerce platforms can adopt fixed terms and conditions. method, obtain the user’s permission, and push commercial text messages, but should provide an effective method of refusal to protect the legitimate rights and interests of users; the identity of the operator of the live broadcaster and the responsibility for bringing the goods; both the user and the platform have the obligation to protect the online virtual property from being stolen. Reasonable allocation of responsibility ratio and other referee rules.
The second is to adhere to the principle of strict protection in terms of safeguarding citizens’ online rights, confirming that online auctions, even if they legally obtain other people’s family letters through commercial methods, constitute an infringement of personal privacy; The overall continuous screen of the game does not enjoy copyright ownership; the desensitized historical information of used cars does not belong to the judgment rules such as personal information or privacy.
These rules of thumb provide important references for the formulation of the Personal Information Protection Law.
The third is to serve the high-quality development of the digital economy, adhere to the principles of fair competition and property protection, and confirm that even if imitation in the commercial field does not cause confusion, but it is false propaganda, it also constitutes unfair competition; The use of 5G” new technology to use the game of rights through the cloud platform does not meet the defense of “technology neutrality”; the network virtual property created by the actual user’s labor is protected by law; financial institutions should be more strict than offline in terms of reminders and notifications The duty of care and other referee rules.
Fourth, in promoting the application of new Internet technologies, adhere to the principle of encouraging technology to be good, and confirm that AI-generated content enjoys the protection of civil property rights; whether the short video is original has nothing to do with the length of its content, and confirms the rights to short videos with original value; Online disk resources, search services that share links constitute infringement and other adjudication rules.
Fifth, in terms of regulating Internet chaos, adhere to the principle of strict governance, and confirm that the network services provided by means of graphic movies, audio recognition, shared members, and anchors accompany watching constitute infringement; to solve the problem of WeChat group owner inaction, WeChat Group owners should perform group management responsibilities and delineate cyberspace"
(5) Innovate the way of social co-governance
Focus on the modernization of the national governance system and governance capabilities, and expand the field of collaborative cyberspace governance.
The Guangzhou Internet Court has launched the country's first cross-Hong Kong and Macao online dispute resolution platform, bringing together 93 mediation institutions in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area to mediate various disputes.
In the "XXX Game Infringement Case", the function of injunction and litigation source governance was extended, and more than 320,000 potential disputes were effectively resolved, and it was rated as the top ten copyright hotspot cases of AIPPI (International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property) China Branch in 2020.
Connect the "judicial chain" with the "chain of custody", "risk control chain", "credit information chain" and "service chain", and use big data, blockchain, etc. to break through the barriers to data flow, and build multi-analysis, multi-dimensional evaluation, and multiple early warning mechanisms. Coordination and linkage, sharing and co-governance; pioneering the “online court trial + online audition and participation” court trial method in the country, inviting parties to various cases to watch the court trial online, constructing a new model of online trial openness, and solving the problem of how to implement the principle of open trial in Internet court trials.
Beijing Internet Court promotes the unification of copyright registration standards and judicial review standards for copyright registration agencies, realizes the connection between the copyright chain of copyright registration agencies and Tianping chain data, promotes the establishment of an intensive online picture trading market, and completes the ownership confirmation and copyright transaction of works in one stop , infringement evidence collection, dispute resolution, etc., to promote the construction of a diversified pre-litigation resolution mechanism for copyright disputes.
In response to the Internet-related cases showing a strong "platform" attribute, Hangzhou Internet Court has launched the country's first judicial application of blockchain smart contracts, realizing online behavior "voluntary contract signing - automatic performance - intelligent filing of cases that cannot be performed - intelligent trial ——The whole-process closed-loop of intelligent execution improves the efficiency of smart contract execution. Through low-cost and high-efficiency handling of a small number of breaches, the dispute rate of e-commerce platforms is reduced from 5% to below 0.01%, which is very important for promoting the formation of contracts in the Internet era and The new form of fulfillment and the reconstruction of a new system of online credit are of great significance.
(6) Existing problems and dilemmas
Although the Internet Court has achieved remarkable results, it still has some problems and faces development difficulties.
One is the lack of awareness.
Most of them fail to stand at the height of the development process of human civilization, understand the era value and historical significance of Internet courts, and still regard them as part of the traditional courts in the age of industrial civilization. A new judicial form that is parallel and difficult to match with general specialized courts.
Second, the supply of judicial theory is insufficient.
On the one hand, many traditional litigation theories, principles, rules, etc. cannot fully meet the needs of reality. "Crossing the river by feeling the stones".
How to "graft" the "two-line litigation" model into traditional judicial theory has not yet formed a unified cognition.
Third, the Internet Court has no corresponding legal status.
The establishment of the three Internet courts is based on the relevant plans reviewed and approved by the Central Comprehensive Deepening Reform Committee, but they have not yet entered the legislative process, and the relevant laws have not provided for them, and the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has not "decided" to confirm them.
Fourth, there are only three basic-level Internet courts in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Guangzhou, and there are no Internet courts for appellate trials, and the system is incomplete.
The implementation of the dual-track system of "two-line litigation" and "single-line litigation" is not conducive to judicial unification.
Fifth, there is no special "Internet Civil Procedure Law" or "Internet Litigation Law", and the existing civil procedure law can only be applied "selectively".
Sixth, there are many new types of cases on the Internet. Many cases have no substantive legal basis and rely on "judges to make laws". The uniformity of adjudication standards is threatened and needs to be further regulated.
Seventh, there is a shortage of human resources, especially the lack of judges who are proficient in law and the Internet, and have a "two-line litigation" mentality, and the relevant talent training mechanism has not yet been formed.
The above problems and dilemmas, if not solved in time, will affect the reality and long-term development of Internet courts, and may even turn them into general traditional courts.
3. Analysis, Discrimination and Adjustment of Traditional Judicial Theory
(1) Main theoretical viewpoints
To sum up, the current legal theory circles have the following views on Internet courts and Internet judicial research:
One is "traditional theory".
Some people believe that although the Internet Court is a new thing, the construction of procedural rules still needs to be based on the basic theory of traditional procedural law.
Electronic litigation does not have the ability to fundamentally change traditional litigation. The principles of publicity, debate, punishment, direct speech and the court’s free evaluation of evidence in traditional litigation must be followed. These principles constitute the application of electronic litigation. benchmark.
As long as it is recognized that the process of hearing civil cases in the Internet courts belongs to the procedures of judicial organs in resolving civil disputes, the basic principles and laws of civil litigation must be followed.
Others believe that online trials are conducted strictly in accordance with the litigation procedures stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law, and there is no essential difference from traditional offline trials. The difference is that the Internet courts have moved offline trial procedures to online. The entire process from service, cross-examination, court hearing to judgment is completed online.
The second is the "worry theory".
Some believe that remote trials pose a series of challenges to traditional procedural jurisprudence.
The core of these is that remote trials do not have the typical presence and rituality required by traditional litigation procedures.
The meaning of presence is that any program participant presents himself realistically within the range of other program participants' visual and auditory senses, and the information expressed through words and actions can immediately be used by other programs. Participant acquisition.
Rituality creates a solemn and solemn atmosphere, and has a certain psychological hint to everyone in the courtroom, telling everyone that the law and justice must not be taken lightly.
The remote trial breaks the presence of traditional court trials. The participants in the program do not display their full picture in the sight of the other party, and the information expressed by language and actions may not be fully conveyed to the other party in real time.
In this way, the effect of judges obtaining sufficient information conducive to fair judgment through court hearings, which is pursued by traditional courts, may be compromised.
The parties' capture of the other party's information may not be sufficient and accurate, which will also affect his more targeted expression of opinions.
The well-designed attack defense procedures of traditional litigation procedures may be less effective.
The related traditional litigation theories, such as the principle of direct trial, the principle of personal experience, and the principle of oral argument, will all be impacted.
On the other hand, in the absence of a sense of ritual, the court trial lacks a solemn atmosphere, the parties may no longer be so awe-inspiring to the procedure, and the procedural law may also be despised.
The third is the "supply theory".
Some people believe that each litigation method has a specific era background and corresponding theoretical basis, and in the case of changes in the era background, it is necessary to explore the appropriate trial mechanism and trial method.
Compared with the debate of "for" and "against", how to "re-understand" and "make new breakthroughs" in the relevant trial mechanism on the basis of sorting out and summarizing the practice patterns, characteristics and operating laws of remote criminal trials to avoid With the lack of legal principles in remote litigation, it is very important to effectively alleviate the conflict and fragmentation between it and traditional litigation theory, and then determine the application direction of criminal remote trial.
Remote trial means that the physical space of the traditional courtroom has been broken, and the participants in the program will conduct verbal communication in a brand-new way. The rule system established based on the traditional court trial method will inevitably be reshaped. Traditional litigation procedure rules have brought about disruptive changes.
Others believe that in order to resolve the justice risks faced by judicial technology products in the development, application and operation, and at the same time overcome the failure of the explanatory power of traditional due process theory in the context of judicial technology, it is necessary to introduce technical due process theory.
Technical due process emphasizes the information transparency, independent participation, accuracy, reliability, remedies and accountability of judicial technical products in operation.
On the basis of the traditional due process theory, this theory adds a new variable of understanding of technical factors, so that judicial justice is externalized into corresponding development criteria, access mechanisms, power guarantee systems and technical application standards in technical application scenarios.
The fourth is "reconstruction theory".
Some believe that, compared with traditional justice, Internet courts present new features such as online litigation activities, account-based parties, modern litigation rules, electronic courts, intelligent trials, and judicial network governance. In different fields such as procedural law and substantive law, it is necessary to reconstruct the legal basis with its own characteristics.
Some people believe that "online" means that the boundaries of time and space are broken, and information transmission, communication, retention, etc. have undergone fundamental changes. Online as the basic positioning, basic characteristics and basic dimensions, new litigation rules should be established, and the sense of ritual should also be considered. Proper innovation and interpretation should be made to challenge the challenges of basic concepts such as solemnity, basic principles of litigation such as direct principle, and specific traditional rules such as jurisdiction and rules of evidence.
Others believe that the goal of my country's civil electronic litigation reform is to establish a party-centered electronic litigation rule system, which requires in-depth theoretical summary and rule reshaping on the basis of practice, and promotes the structural construction of electronic litigation rules. The integrated application of litigation and artificial intelligence, 5G, blockchain, and big data justice will jointly build a legal picture of the future information society.
(2) The basic position of the "two-line litigation" model
General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that it is necessary to summarize the laws of socialist rule of law practice with Chinese characteristics, strengthen the research on the original concepts, judgments, categories and theories of China's rule of law, and enhance the international influence and discourse power of my country's rule of law system and rule of law theory.
In the author's opinion, the Internet Court is a creation of epochal significance under the background of informatization in human judicial history.
It opens up a new realm of justice and has milestone value.
We must recognize and understand its value and significance from the height of the development history of human civilization.
The so-called Internet court is a judicial organ with an independent entity form and an operating mode of "two-line litigation", which was created in the information age.
Its main features are: (1) it is completely the product of the Internet era, not a simple derivative or appendix of industrial civilization; (2) it and the general traditional courts use Internet technology to provide convenient litigation services for the parties and their litigation agents Different from the "digital court" that directly hears cases online, it is a separate entity court that is separate from traditional courts in organization and physical space (with the continuous upgrading of Internet technology and the popularization of "metaverse", etc., This "entity" will also change in the future); (3) it specializes in the jurisdiction of transactions, infringement and other civil disputes and administrative disputes arising from the Internet, that is, "online" behavior, and does not accept physical space that is "online". (4) The whole process of handling cases, including submission of litigation materials, payment of litigation fees, case filing, court hearing, judgment, and service, are all run online virtually, and only a few must be conducted offline. The case or the litigation part of the litigation is only carried out in the offline physical court, this is an exception.
Internet justice or Internet litigation is a broad concept, including four situations: "online trial of offline disputes", "online trial of online disputes", "offline trial of online disputes" and "online trial of online and offline cross disputes".
The first situation is because of behavior disputes in the physical space, "cross-border" to the Internet space to carry out litigation activities, this huge "time difference" is like a world of difference, objectively there is a series of "worry theory" proposed. discomfort".
The second situation is the "two-line litigation" model, in which all parties have conducted transactions, infringements, etc. in cyberspace from the beginning, and they also conduct litigation activities in the same cyberspace. There is no "cross-border" problem. Judges, parties The parties and the participants in the lawsuit "resonate at the same frequency" online, and neither feel "discomfort".
The third scenario is to use the traditional trial mode to try online dispute cases.
The fourth situation is the disputed behavior or content of the online trial, some of which occur online and some of which occur offline.
At present, the theoretical circles actually mainly raise objections to the research on "offline dispute online trial", and few specialize in the "two-line litigation" model.
The third and fourth cases have basically not attracted people's attention.
This paper mainly takes the "two-line litigation" model of Internet courts as the research object.
The research on this issue should grasp the following points: First, the "two-line litigation" mode should be distinguished from the "single-line litigation" mode, especially the "offline dispute online trial". The two are very different and cannot be confused.
Secondly, the traditional litigation theory is formed based on the behavior of physical space under the background of industrial civilization, which is obviously of the times.
Finally, both the basic principles and specific procedures of the current civil procedure law are mainly stipulations for offline litigation of physical space behavior disputes. Theoretical research should adhere to innovative ideas and spirit, and from a broader perspective, to enrich and improve legislation. for reference.
In a word, in the face of the new judicial practice in the information age, our principle should be to follow the development trend of the times, focus on the core value of litigation that is just, efficient and convenient to resolve disputes, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, adhere to the problem orientation, Under the premise of following the basic laws of judicial activities, with an open and inclusive mind, promote theoretical innovation and practical innovation.
The first is to transform "expansion".
Transform traditional judicial theories that do not fully meet new practical requirements, reinterpret definitions, or make expansive interpretations to give new connotations and extensions, so that they can accommodate new situations and new problems encountered in Internet litigation as much as possible.
The second is to adapt to "integration".
Comprehensively and systematically study and summarize the new situations and problems encountered in Internet litigation, especially the "two-line litigation" mode, find out the characteristics of the laws, and make suggestions on them.
Develop adaptive explanations, integrate them into traditional judicial theory as much as possible, and avoid or reduce direct conflict.
The third is the original "filler".
According to the characteristics of its laws, for those that can neither be "expanded" nor "integrated", but need to be completely recreated, original concepts, definitions, principles, procedures, rules, etc. that are suitable for them should be created.
The fourth is to build a system.
Integrate the above aspects to build a systematic and scientific new theoretical system suitable for Internet litigation, especially the "two-line litigation" model.
In this way, it will unify the cognition of Internet courts, standardize the operation and operation of standards, and form a pattern in which theory and practice are consistent and coordinated, making them more mature and stereotyped, and developing in the right direction.
This is a process of discomfort-adaptation-adaptation, which can be called "adaptation theory".
(三)“调适论”之刍见
1.关于公开审判原则。公开审判原则最早是为了反对封建司法中的秘密审判、私设法庭、专横擅断而提出的，经历了工业文明时期的发展与演变，取得了司法上基本原则的价值地位，并在各类诉讼程序中衍生出很多具体规则。它既是我国的一项宪法原则，也是一项重要的诉讼原则。虽然互联网法院适用的诉讼规则等经过一系列相关创新和适应性调整，但必须遵循公开审判原则的基本价值，确保司法公正以“看得见的方式”实现。同时，也需要从时代更迭的层面，考察公开审判原则，使其再造升华。在工业文明时代，人们获取信息仅限于报纸、电视等渠道，即时性不够，传播面受限。为了强化公众和舆论对司法的监督，需要向“尽可能公开”的方向解读和发展。然而，信息化时代带来了信息爆炸式的传播方式，人人可以是自媒体，对司法的监督十分便利。比如传统庭审公开，仅限于法庭旁听，人数有限，而在互联网上开庭，理论上参与实时庭审的人数没有上限，可旁听人员的范围是传统庭审无法比拟的。但有时当事人个人隐私或商业秘密等被泄露，产生网络暴力，甚至也有舆论绑架司法的情况。况且，有时网民关注的焦点不一定是案件是否得到公正处理，而是其中或背后某些“吸引眼球”的信息，这已有偏离监督司法范畴之嫌。互联网法院适用公开审判原则，应当秉持有利于案件公正、高效审理的基本价值取向，在满足社会公众监督司法需要的同时，要注意保护当事人隐私等重要权利，防止过犹不及。
2.关于直接审理原则、司法亲历性原则。直接审理和司法亲历性要求法官亲自到法庭当面直接听取当事人双方的主张、理由、依据和质辩等，对当事人、诉讼代理人、证人等察言观色、亲身体验，据此对其陈述、供述等进行判断，作出裁判。这有利于法官身临其境直接探明案件事实真相，公正裁判。客观分析，有的线下纠纷案件在线上审理，有时会影响这种效果。比如离婚案件，法官要通过庭审活动体察判断夫妻双方感情“是否确已破裂”，而这种感受、心证、判断等，在物理法庭面对面观察体会和移到线上“隔窗”观察感受是不同的。但是“双线诉讼”模式则不同，由于双方当事人的交易、侵权等行为本来就发生在网络空间，法官也在网络空间直接审理，具有“同质性”，各诉讼参与人的接触更直接、真实，更符合亲历性本身的内涵和本质。相反，如在互联网上侮辱诽谤他人，若将线上的证据材料如视频、图像、聊天记录、网络页面等下载，在物理空间法庭质证认证，法官的“亲历”感受反倒“变味儿”，甚至有“此物非彼物”之感，更不利于对侮辱诽谤事实和影响度的认知，反而不符合网上行为亲历性的内在要求。可见互联网法院“双线诉讼”模式，不仅不违背直接审理原则、司法亲历性要求，反而更符合亲历性认知规律。
3.关于言词辩论原则。相对于书面审理原则而言，言词辩论原则要求法官审理案件，尤其是法庭调查、法庭辩论，各方当事人要以直接言词亦即面对面的口语陈述方式进行。这有利于各方亲口表达自己对有关证据材料的全面深入理解、认知等，有利于法官不仅从客观证据中，而且结合言语表达更准确发现真实。但是，言词辩论原则在传统诉讼中的作用也是相对的，虽然它有利于当事人公正清晰、迅速地说明法律争议，但绝对适用的结果会导致诉讼拖延甚至偏离辩论的主方向。现代民事诉讼即便不引入电子诉讼，该原则也有被限制或弱化的趋势。如，2001年修改的《德国民事诉讼法》第128条作了变通：法院在征得双方当事人同意后，可以不经言词辩论作出判决。“双线诉讼”模式当事人在互联网平台发生的行为，又在互联网平台上言词陈述、辩论，体验应是一致的。再者，言词辩论原则的价值主要在于，物理空间发生的纠纷往往客观证据较少，需要以言词作为补充，甚至有的民间纠纷案件没有客观证据，只能依赖言词。而网上行为全程留痕，客观证据比较全。从互联网法院的实践来看，用语言表达各自的意见，辩论争议的证据、事实、法律适用等，没有在物理空间法庭表达更集中、激烈，但并未对其表达、互动、交流等形成实质性影响。可见，“双线诉讼”模式中言词辩论原则的价值明显降低。
4.关于“场景”“现场感”的严肃性。在传统诉讼活动中，法庭场景的价值自不待言，具有庄严、肃穆等特点，对于树立法庭严肃性、权威性具有十分重要的意义。而“双线诉讼”模式均是虚拟法庭，没有传统法庭场景，客观上减少了庄严感(即便仍可布置国徽等)。但是，从另一方面看，网络社会的特点之一是减少层次、等级，凸显了社会主体的平等性。这种审判活动无论是当事人之间、法官与当事人及其他诉讼参与人之间，相互平等、互相尊重的意识增强了。当事人不存在传统诉讼中可能出现的“门难进、脸难看、事难办”等困惑。而且线上审判活动全程留痕，既促进了当事人及其他诉讼参与人诉讼行为的规范，也加大了对法官行为的约束，更限制了法官与当事人、律师等的非正常接触。在廉洁、公正、规范等问题上，基于人是感性动物，机器则无情无欲的认识，相对于人的自觉、自律乃至制度约束，当事人及社会公众更相信机器和技术。实际上，传统法庭严肃性、权威性的主要目的，也是为了追求司法公信力。实践中这种无场景的“场景”审判活动的公信力大幅度提升了，这也是互联网法院审理的案件上诉率、申请再审率、上访事项明显低于传统法院的原因之一。在信息化时代，法庭严肃性、庄严感的价值已明显降低，互联网法院及其审判活动公信力的提高，主要依靠公正、高效、平等、便捷、亲民等，而非传统的“场景”“仪式感”。
5.关于当事人程序利益减损问题。有些观点认为，线上诉讼对当事人程序利益造成了减损，这也是“传统论”“担忧论”的主要理由之一。笔者认为，首先，“线下纠纷线上审”客观上会对当事人程序权益或利益造成不同程度的减损。因此，2021年修订的《民事诉讼法》以及最高人民法院相关司法解释均规定，线上审理须“经当事人同意”。若此则属当事人行使了处分权，所谓减损问题应已解决。其次，“双线诉讼”模式中，刑事案件与民事、行政案件应分别论之。刑事案件是公权力追诉被告人，对其诉讼权利的保护应更周全、严格，因此，线上发生的严重刑事案件或者被告人要求线下审理的案件，应当在线下审理。客观上，在线上发生严重犯罪，尤其是自然犯罪如杀人、伤害、强奸等比较少，甚至不可能。民事、行政案件则另当别论。一则运用互联网技术审理线下纠纷案件，总体来说是为当事人和法院提供的服务手段，主要意义是方便当事人，提高办案效率。手段服从目的，应当以不损害当事人利益为限。而“双线诉讼”其纠纷原本就发生在网络空间，“线上审”不仅仅是一种服务和手段，而属“同性同质”，是纠纷本身的内在要求，也是人类文明发展阶段之使然，不能简单以“减损”论。二则民事诉讼的性质决定了当事人诉讼利益的相对性，合理“减损”是制度容忍范围之内的，如证据优势原则，实际上就包含对一方当事人程序和实体利益一定的“减损”，但基于举证责任分配原则和公正与效率平衡原则，此种制度设计并无利益“减损”之虞。“双线诉讼”较之“单线诉讼”一定的所谓权利缺失，亦属必要，不应简单归于利益“减损”。
6.关于应否定位为专门法院问题。专门法院是从传统统一审判体系中分离出来的，其突出特点是案件管辖的专门性。有不少人主张互联网法院应当定位为专门法院。笔者认为，从性质和时代意义上论，互联网法院应是与传统法院并行比肩的信息化时代的新型法院，不宜定位为传统法院之中的专门法院。一是产生的时代背景不同。站在人类文明发展史的高度观察，专门法院和其他传统法院主要是工业文明的产物，互联网法院则是信息化时代的产物，二者非专业领域不同，而是时代背景、产生基础相异。二是面向的空间领域不同。专门法院与其他传统法院一样，主要面向物理空间领域。而互联网法院则面向网络空间领域，它们不属于“同一个世界”。三是设立的标准不同。专门法院从一般传统法院中分立出来，是以审判专业化为标准，故以“专门”而得名，其理念基础、模式、程序等与一般传统法院没什么区别。互联网法院不是以专业化、专门化为标准，非“专门”管辖而是综合管辖，它受理因互联网行为发生的各类案件，其理念基础、诉讼模式等也不同。四是发展前景不同。目前专门法院只在个别地方设置，而且只设一级，是碎片化的，除成立较早、体系比较完备的军事法院、海事法院外，其他专门法院难以完全摆脱其地域特点，将来很难每一种专门法院都在全国普遍设立，否则将严重冲击甚至肢解普通法院体系。要注意吸取铁路运输法院等专门法院设立之后又“改制回归”的教训。而互联网法院则不同。随着互联网、大数据、移动互联、区块链等技术迅速发展，互联网法院完全适应于新技术的优势，将得到充分彰显，而且互联网案件无地域、无区划、无边界的特点，极易将全国的案件统一管辖，并为其未来布局提供全新的途径。
四、“三步走”战略与制度构想
我国已成为网络大国，将大力实施网络强国战略。习近平总书记指出，要加强数字经济发展的理论研究，就涉及数字技术和数字经济发展的问题提出对策建议。2019年1月，中央全面深化改革委员会审议通过的《关于政法领域全面深化改革的实施意见》，将“加强互联网法院建设，推动完善互联网法院管辖”作为重点任务。《法治中国建设规划(2020—2025年)》将“加强互联网法院建设”作为重点内容。我们应当站在时代制高点，适应信息化时代发展需要，立足于当前客观需要和可能，着眼于未来长远发展，推动互联网法院高质量发展。数字正义是人类发展到数字社会对公平正义更高水平需求的体现，是数字社会司法文明的重要组成部分，也是互联网司法的价值目标。互联网法院的基本任务是保护数字社会主体合法权益、促进数字经济依法有序发展、规范数字空间秩序和数字技术应用伦理，满足数字经济高质量发展对司法的新需求，进而实现数字社会更高水平的公平正义。为实现这一目标，笔者认为，应当研究谋划互联网法院“三步走”发展战略。
(一)总结改革经验，把握基本规律
基本目标是解放思想，总结近几年互联网法院改革的经验，深入研究、准确把握互联网法院这一信息化时代产物的规律性，巩固改革成果，培养储备人才，为进一步发展奠定坚实基础。
1.探究诉讼规律特点。“双线诉讼”模式有其自身的规律和特点，归纳起来主要有：(1)纠纷行为“通域性”。各方当事人的行为发生在虚拟网络空间，没有地域界限，没有行政区划，没有距离远近，彼此“同屏”“同线”“同域”。这对互联网案件是否应当以地域管辖为原则提出了疑问；(2)当事人身份“账号性”。在网络中，人们通过抽象的网名等代替现实中的自然人姓名或法人名称，以密码、密钥等身份认证方式代替现实中的签字、会面等，可以说网络中的法律关系已不再是传统意义上的自然人和法人，而是数字形式存在的“账号”。互联网法院通过这种数字认证方式，来审核诉讼参与人的身份。(3)法庭形态“虚拟性”。它不同于传统的物理空间法庭，是在互联网上虚拟设置的，由法官、当事人、证人等诉讼参与人分别所在的场所通过互联网连结在一起，共同组成一个“同系统分场所几点一线”的组合式虚拟法庭。这对法庭的概念、意义、设置、布局、模式、建设等提出了全新的要求。(4)诉辩审理“隔屏性”。法官、各方当事人及其他诉讼参与人的具体诉讼行为不在同一物理空间，而在不同甚至遥不可及又近在当面的网络空间，隔屏对话、虚拟互动。这与法官亲历性、直接审理原则、当庭举证、当庭质证、当庭辩论等传统理论不完全吻合。(5)证据过程“留痕性”。当事人网上交易、违约、侵权、犯罪等行为，技术上均有记录、记载，特别是区块链技术的应用，使留痕固化，不可更改。这为调查取证认定事实提供了前所未有的便利，对传统法院审判特别是庭审以调查核实证据为重点的模式，提出了新的主张。(6)送达生效“即时性”。送达签收涉及法律文书及有关诉讼材料生效与否以及生效时间这一重大问题，与受送达人权利义务的关联度极大。传统送达方式如邮寄送达、公告送达等，送与达都有一定时间间隔，而且一般以当事人签收为生效要件，法律文书生效时间与送递时间往往不是同一时间点。而互联网诉讼一般是除系统错误等特殊情况外，送达信息到达受送达人电子地址所在系统时即为送达，即送即达即生效，这不仅仅提高了办案效率，而且直接涉及受送达人的权利享有与义务履行。
2.创新管理模式。“科学技术的迅猛发展，特别是计算机的迅速普及、网络通讯技术的广泛应用，缔造了一个以信息化为核心的时代。在这个时代里，人与人之间的山川阻隔被彻底消除，整个世界成了平的。”与工业文明时代不同，信息化时代人类实现了充分、及时、直接的彼此联系与影响，社会主体可以在同一平台上获取相同信息，不再需要层层传达转递。传统的各类层级组织功能弱化，呈现出扁平多元和碎片化趋势。去层级化、扁平化重构着传统社会结构，创造新的组织方式和组织形态。正是为了适应这种变化，2017年印发实施的《关于加强法官检察官正规化专业化职业化建设全面落实司法责任制的意见》规定，坚持精简、务实、效能的原则，在理顺职能、优化分工的基础上，整合法院、检察院内设机构，减少不必要的管理层级；员额较少的院应当设立综合业务机构。互联网法院作为信息化时代的直接产物、司法改革的“前排方阵”，应当充分彰显上述特征，减少管理层级，降低管理成本，改革传统行政管理模式的审判庭，根据需要组建若干以合议庭为基础的审判团队。行政综合部门适当合并，减少块块分割，实行全新的机构设置和管理模式。这是互联网技术带来社会革命的一个组成部分，符合社会组织管理扁平化的规律。
3.规范拓展案件管辖。突出“双线诉讼”特点，管辖范围只限于网络行为产生的纠纷，形成线上纠纷由互联网法院管辖，线下纠纷由传统法院管辖格局。当事人行为部分在线上、部分在线下的，根据实际情况，主要行为在线上的，由互联网法院管辖，主要行为在线下的，由传统法院管辖。以此划定管辖边界，既清晰明确，又体现了互联网法院管辖特点。建议按照此思路，除了最高人民法院《关于互联网法院审理案件若干问题的规定》明确的11类互联网案件外，还可以扩大其管辖范围，受理与数字经济健康有序发展密切相关的其他案件。民事诉讼，如涉互联网技术秘密权属、侵权及合同纠纷，涉互联网商标虚拟服务、虚拟产品纠纷，涉互联网不正当竞争纠纷和垄断纠纷，涉互联网广告合同纠纷、演出合同纠纷、展览合同纠纷，签订、履行行为均在互联网上完成的信托、保险纠纷等。行政诉讼，如不服行政机关撤销、吊销互联网信息服务许可证、信息网络传播视听节目许可证、网络文化经营许可证等涉互联网行政许可证而产生的行政纠纷，不服行政机关作出互联网信息服务管理、互联网征信服务管理、互联网商品交易服务管理等涉互联网行政行为而产生的行政纠纷。总之，“双线诉讼”模式应当成为划分案件管辖的基本原则。
4.改革庭审模式及庭审重点。物理空间发生的行为往往时过境迁，证人证言的稳定性比较弱，书面证据材料容易篡改，双方当事人经常有意或无意发生理解上的矛盾。因此传统庭审的重点一般都是法庭调查，其中关键又是证据核查认定，通过当庭举证、当庭质证、当庭辩证甚至当庭认证等，逐一调查核实，查清案件事实真相，公正裁判。而信息技术特别是区块链技术普及，使电子数据、微信记录、视频等证据的留痕性、存档性、真实性、客观性等明显提升，甚至使当事人的行为过程完全“锁定”，不可更改、不可置疑。庭审对许多证据事实的调查、质证、辩论等必要性明显降低。有些案件如果运用区块链技术或其他合法的技术手段“锁定”了相关证据，没有极特殊情况可以直接认定证据的真实性、客观性。简化了庭审程序，提高了办案效率，保证了办案质量，还可以引导网民运用区块链等技术，在交易活动或诉讼中保护自己合法权益。这是互联网法院庭审的重大变革，概括起来可以称为“四化”，即重点转化、程序简化、认证易化、裁判优化。
5.完善人才培养和储备机制。从实践情况来看，互联网法院人才特别是法官力量严重不足。广州互联网法院现有在编法官35人，2021年上半年人均结案569件，法官年人均结案应为1200件(不包括诉前化解约1000件)，据此计算并考虑诉前化解及技术辅助审判等因素，该院能承受的最大年纠纷化解量为85000件左右。近三年广东省全省法院受理纯线上纠纷约57万件，年均受理量约19万件，所需法官人数约86名。杭州互联网法院在编法官30人，成立以来人均结案累计2900余件，约人均每天办案3.6件。随着互联网案件的不断增多，特别是突破地域管辖制度的设计构想，人才培养与储备任务非常艰巨。解决此问题可以研究开辟以下途径：(1)大学研究生教育。与有关部门和大学合作，在法学、计算机以及相关专业本科毕业生中，选择优秀人才进行定向互联网审判专业硕士研究生、博士研究生的培养。学制期间到互联网法院实习一年，毕业后符合条件的予以录用。(2)社会招考。面向社会招考法学、计算机以及相关专业硕士、博士毕业的工作人员，录用后在互联网法院试用一年，胜任工作的正式上岗。(3)系统选录。在全国政法系统选录法学、计算机以及相关专业毕业通过司法考试的硕士、博士研究生，先进行半年集中专门培训，符合要求的即上岗。
(二)依法授权试点，确保改革于法有据
基本目标是按照以法治思维和法治方式推进改革的要求，明确法律依据，创新具体制度，扩大改革成效，推动互联网法院建设与发展走上法治轨道。建议通过全国人大常委会决定授权试点，重点解决以下问题。
1.赋予互联网法院法律地位。目前互联网法院的状态，需要从“法定法官原则”进行审视。作为一项在世界尤其是大陆法系国家和地区普遍认可的司法原则，法定法官原则要求按照法律预先设定的标准确定案件管辖法院和审判法官，且根据标准确定的法院和法官应当是明确的。该原则的首要方面是，应明确规定法定法院之设立依据，非经法律规定不得就特定案件专门成立特别法院。我国《立法法》也规定各级人民法院的产生、组织和职权只能制定法律。重大改革应当于法有据，特别是互联网法院这种涉及法院体制、体系，对诉讼制度、原则、程序、规则以及对实体法许多填补空白的重大创新，更应当有法律依据或权力机关明确授权。立法滞后于社会实践是常态，也是规律使然。目前专门制定有关法律的时机尚不成熟，可考虑参照相关先例，提请全国人大常委会作出决定，对互联网法院“授权试点”。如，2021年8月20日，全国人大常委会《关于授权最高人民法院组织开展四级法院审级职能定位改革试点工作的决定》，授权试点期间试点法院暂时“调整适用”《民事诉讼法》《行政诉讼法》有关条款，试点期满后对实践证明可行的，应当修改完善有关法律。这种“调整适用”有关法律规定的授权，不仅能使互联网法院及其一系列突破现行法律的创新于法有据，而且能给互联网法院以更宽广的创新空间，较之赋予其专门法院法律地位价值更大。
2.突破地域区划统一行使管辖权。以工业大生产为特点的工业文明，催生了城市化和人口的大量集中。从方便当事人诉讼、方便法院审判出发，传统法院的诉讼管辖都普遍确立了地域管辖原则。但是，互联网最突出的特点之一是“通域性”，没有地域界限和距离，全域贯通统一。“双线诉讼”按其自身规律和特点，不应简单适用地域管辖原则。习近平总书记明确指出：“我国是单一制国家，司法权从根本上说是中央事权，各地法院不是地方的法院，而是国家设在地方代表国家行使审判权的法院。”《中共中央关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定》提出，探索设立跨行政区划的人民法院，办理跨地区案件。这为互联网法院突破地域管辖，在全国统一行使管辖权提供了政策依据。建议“双线诉讼”案件管辖突破地域，根据任务量和人力，全国统一确定管辖。
3.探索建立“类集团诉讼”制度。我国《民事诉讼法》第57条规定了集团诉讼制度。互联网平台商业模式的特点之一，是多数甚至无数客户连续发生海量同种标的、同类性质的交易，如网上购物、网络小额贷款等。此类案件一般事实清楚、诉讼标的较小，而且都有固定合同条款，当事人权利义务相同，违约情形类似，案件同质化现象突出。但是原告起诉时，可能许多“客户”尚未发生交易，或者交易尚未产生纠纷，将来发生纠纷起诉之后，严格讲并不完全适用民事诉讼法的规定。建议适应互联网诉讼的特殊需求，创建“类集团诉讼”制度，即事后发生类似交易，产生纠纷当事人起诉的，经一定程序审查，确定属于同类诉讼标的、诉讼请求相同的，直接适用该类案件判决、裁定，使大批量没有规则价值的简易案件快速、简化、批量化处理，降低诉讼成本，这样更符合“双线诉讼”特点。
4.拓展涉外案件管辖。网络行为特点之一是没有国界、全球互联互通。互联网涉外案件越来越多，而且专业性比较强。根据民事诉讼法规定，重大涉外案件由中级法院管辖。但是，目前三个互联网法院都是基层法院，无权受理这类涉外案件。实际上互联网涉外案件由互联网法院审理更为专业和方便，也更易取得当事人双方信任，对于维护我国司法主权，加强我国在国际上的话语权，参与相关国际规则制定，树立互联网法院形象和权威等，都具有重要意义。建议提请全国人大常委会决定授权，在三个互联网法院进行重大涉外互联网案件管辖试点。
5.有条件的认可“法官造法”。互联网发明和普及时间不长，互联网法院审理的案件大多都是新类型案件，许多没有相对应的具体法律规范，而依据法院不得拒绝裁判原则，又必须处理案件，创立规则、填补法律空白实际上就成为互联网法院的一项重要任务，“法官造法”难以避免。互联网法院成立以来，通过审理大量新类型案件，创立的一系列裁判规则，许多属于人大立法权限之内的事项，但客观上尚不具备人大立法的条件。建议提请全国人大常委会授权国务院和最高人民法院，对这些“法官造法”进行筛选甄别，分别上升为有关行政法规和司法解释，以统一法律标准和裁判尺度，既解决互联网法院审判案件实体法律依据不足问题，又为今后人大立法奠定基础。
(三)健全体制体系，实现高质量发展
基本目标是构建系统的法律体系，改革审判体制，完善全国布局，最终形成具有中国特色、互联网时代特色、在地位上与传统法院并行比肩的、科学完善的互联网法院体制和审判体系，实现互联网法院高质量发展，推进司法治理体系和治理能力现代化。
1.制定《互联网民事诉讼法》。现行《民事诉讼法》是针对物理空间发生的传统诉讼而制定的，许多内容难以适用互联网案件审判。虽然最近全国人大常委会修改《民事诉讼法》增加了一条线上诉讼的原则规定，但长远看仍不能适应互联网诉讼需要。“双线诉讼”对传统诉讼理论、原则、规则构成了重大挑战，有的甚至是颠覆性的。这种时代变迁带来的司法革命，不是对传统诉讼规则的简单复制，而是理念的重塑以及原则、规则的重构，需要对诉讼程序进行根本性的现代化改造。2021年8月，最高人民法院通过的《人民法院在线诉讼规则》对一些主要问题作了初步规定，对指导规范互联网诉讼有重要指导意义。建议在总结经验基础上，针对互联网诉讼的特点，适时制定《互联网民事诉讼法》或《互联网诉讼法》，以全面适应互联网诉讼需要，完善我国诉讼法体系，为世界诉讼法理论和立法实践贡献中国智慧。
2.管辖网络刑事案件。互联网在为人类带来便利的同时，也为违法犯罪分子提供了技术与空间。近些年我国网络犯罪乃至跨国跨境网络犯罪大量增加，已成为社会的一大危害，其增长速度远超过传统违法犯罪案件。2021年4月至2022年4月，全国共破获电信网络诈骗案件39.4万起，抓获犯罪嫌疑人63.4万名，同比分别上升28.5%和76.6%，封堵涉诈域名网址210.6万个，紧急止付涉案资金3291亿元，国家反诈中心APP受理群众举报线索1466万条。有学者提出，刑事诉讼的目的在于行使国家刑罚权，行政诉讼的目的在于处理公法上的权利义务关系，两者的程序保障要求显然高于民事诉讼，它们发展电子诉讼的适宜性不及民事诉讼。但互联网犯罪不同于传统犯罪行为，其侦查、起诉、审理、证据审查、事实认定、法律适用、裁判等等都有其特殊性。由互联网法院审理这类案件，有利于体现网络犯罪审理特点，保证审判质量。需要注意的是，刑事案件确有特殊性，重大、疑难、复杂、可能判处重刑或者被告人、辩护人、公诉人不同意“双线诉讼”的，应在线下法庭审判。而大量的事实清楚、案情简单、罪行较轻的案件，尤其是适用速裁程序、减刑假释等案件，则可考虑采用“双线诉讼”模式。此外，特殊案件可以主要内容在线下审理，部分诉讼参与人可以在网上远程参加。这项改革涉及整个刑事审判体系的重构，建议公安机关和检察机关相关改革亦应跟上。
3.建立多元审级制度。北京、杭州、广州互联网法院成立以来共受理案件35万余件，上诉率、再审率、来信来访事项占案比都明显低于传统法院。如，广州互联网法院所办案件，上诉率、再审率、来信来访事项占案比分别为1.63%、0.0015%、0.2%，远低于当地传统基层法院13.1%、0.067%、0.75%的比率。这说明“双线诉讼”案件审理质量高、效率高、当事人认可度高、裁判权威性高。因此，未来立法建议在平衡公正与效率的基础上，科学配置司法资源，构建多元审级制度。基本原则可以是：重大、疑难、复杂、关键证据未运用区块链等技术固定、当事人争议较大的案件，实行一审、二审和有条件的再审；一般案件特别是关键证据运用区块链技术固定，没有篡改可能，当事人无法推翻或反证的，可以实行一审、二审制，不必设再审程序，真正实行“两审终审”制；案情简单、标的额较小、主要证据已经运用区块链技术固定、当事人争议不大的，可以实行一审终审制，不必设二审、再审程序。这种多元审级制度符合互联网行为即时、快捷、经济、行为留痕、证据易固定等特点和规律，既降低了社会的司法成本，又保证了办案质量。
4.设立上诉审互联网法院。现在的三个互联网法院都是基层法院，上诉审法院是其所在地的传统中级法院，这样带来一个悖论，互联网法院是基于信息化时代互联网行为纠纷的特殊性而设立的，许多都不同于传统法院。互联网法院一审，又由传统中级法院行使终审权，从审判理念、诉讼程序运行到裁判规则等方面似难以保障统一，不仅影响办案质量和效率，而且降低了成立互联网法院的价值，因此建议考虑设立上诉审法院。从已有基础、审判力量、业务能力、社会成本等方面考虑，比较理想的方案是将现有北京、杭州、广州互联网法院改造为上诉审法院，另行设立若干一审法庭，以相对自成体系，统一理念和标准等，充分体现互联网法院的时代特色和价值。基于互联网诉讼无地域区划界限的特点和互联网案件上诉率、再审率、信访事项占案率都很低，上诉审法院任务量预计较小的实际情况，如无特殊必要，宜严格控制新增设法院，若以后审判任务需要，以现有法院增加人员为主要解决之道，以体现互联网法院规模化、批量化、简捷、高效的特点。
5.完善互联网法庭全国布局。随着互联网的不断普及和发展，一审互联网案件数量、种类越来越多，根据任务发展需要，建议在充分调查研究基础上，逐步在全国部分基层法院布局设立一审互联网法庭。设立原则主要是：首先，充分考虑互联网无地域、无区划、无边界等特点，不受行政区划限制，一审法庭和上诉审法院地域上也不必相互对应，主要根据案件量和法治人才优势等在全国统筹布局，防止受地方利益影响。其次，全国法庭数量不宜多，突出“集约化大生产”规模效应，充分体现其容量大、速度快、效率高、标准统一的特点。最后，各互联网上诉审法院和一审法庭案件管辖分工，由最高人民法院根据案件量和人员情况统筹安排。
五、司法模式的中国贡献
人类生活向数字世界全面迁徙不可逆转，我们正在经历传统制度与数字革命的激烈碰撞。“世界正在从重塑中迅速地出现新的价值观念和社会准则，出现新的技术，新的地理政治关系，新的生活方式和新的传播交往方式的冲突，需要崭新的思想和推理，新的分类和观念。”互联网法院是时代的产物，是人类法治文明的最新组成部分，是我国法治的原创性概念和对世界的贡献。资料显示，现在世界上只有我国建立了互联网法院，其他国家有的传统法院开展了线上审判活动，有的也有电子司法方面的法律，但尚未建立统一受理互联网案件的互联网法院。如，2001年2月，美国密歇根州议会通过《电子法庭法》，同年10月，密歇根电子法庭正式成立，拥有与其他法院一样的权力，但并不是专门审理网上纠纷的法庭。2016年9月，英国发布了《司法系统改革联合声明》，明确了在线诉讼有关内容，涉及民事、家事、刑事等领域，在线离婚、遗嘱认证、民事金钱索赔、社会保障上诉及刑事在线答辩等试点项目均获成功。新加坡立法授权法院准许被告人和证人通过视频链接提供证据，法院对该证据进行有效评估，尽最大可能保持程序完整，还将书面听证与口头听证相结合，在征得当事人同意的情况下，以异步方式进行调解、证据交换、审判等，并开展“异步听证”试点工作，满足了疫情期间诉讼当事人的司法需求，取得了良好的社会效果。加拿大、澳大利亚等也不同程度进行了线上审判，特别是新冠肺炎疫情在全球暴发，客观上推动了线上审判发展的进程。从长远来看，其他国家因应信息化时代的需求，也可能会陆续建立互联网法院(internetcourts)或互联网法庭(internetdivisions)。英国首席大法官伯内特指出：“无论是发达的经济体还是发展中国家，迅速加强技术的应用都是确保司法车轮继续转动的唯一途径；随着法官从业者和诉讼参与人对技术日渐熟悉，最初的疑虑正在被消除，今天激进的改革很快会成为明天的日常。”
习近平总书记指出，发展好、运用好、治理好互联网，让互联网更好造福人类，是国际社会的共同责任。我国要积极参与数字经济国际合作，主动参与国际组织数字经济议题谈判，开展双多边数字治理合作，维护和完善多边数字经济治理机制，及时提出中国方案，发出中国声音。我国互联网法院已经有了成功尝试，并引起了世人关注。截止到2021年6月30日，北京互联网法院英文网站总访问量1457万余次，接待外宾来访60场共计1768人次，覆盖了6大洲的48个国家和地区。广州互联网法院共受理涉国际知名标识、国际域名、网络游戏、数字作品等涉外因素知识产权案件3212件，年增长幅度达46.2%，其中涉外当事人主要来自美国、英国、日本、韩国等发达国家。杭州互联网法院设立跨境贸易法庭，依法审理“小猪佩奇案”，被英国《泰晤士报》称为“中国知识产权保护方面一次具有里程碑意义的判决”。意大利B.P.M银行专程来函，称赞中国平等保护中外知识产权权利人的合法权益。有的跨国公司收到在线送达的诉讼材料后，主动应诉，认可电子送达和在线开庭方式。近年来先后有50余个国际司法代表团前来考察，认为中国法院将司法与高科技、新科技有效结合乃世界“顶级创举”。疫情期间网上立案、开庭等创造性解决诉讼难题的做法，也受到了外媒的肯定。法新社、TheLawyer等外媒专门报道，称“在线上诉讼领域创新方面，中国已处于世界领先地位”。互联网的快速发展为中国现代化建设和中华民族伟大复兴提供了重要战略机遇期，我们必须紧紧抓住这一难得的历史机遇，创新司法制度，提出中国方案，贡献中国智慧。
(一)彰显互联网法院样本价值
中国互联网法院与一般的“互联网+司法”不同，它是独立于传统法院、具有自身实体、将其整体与互联网完全融为一体的全新法院形态。展望未来，鉴于物理世界与互联网世界共生共存，互联网法院不可能替代传统法院，但与传统法院各行其道、各扬其长、并行比肩、相得益彰，将是大势所趋。我国顺应互联网、大数据、云计算、移动互联、人工智能和区块链等信息技术的发展，在互联网法院设计、建设方面率先进行了有益的理论研究和实践探索。建议在总结经验的基础上，进一步加强研究，提升理论，完善规则，丰富实践，对未来全球司法彰显样本价值。正如国际法院院长优素福所言，中国的互联网法院为司法活动的未来样式奠定了基础。
(二)推动互联网法院模式定型化
适应互联网诉讼需要，我国互联网法院从设立、管理运行、法庭形态、立案、庭审、裁判、送达等方面都作了比较深入的探索，在创新诉讼理论、诉讼载体、诉讼模式等方面摸索了经验。这不仅有几年来的审判实践，还有最高人民法院制定的《关于互联网法院审理案件若干问题的规定》《人民法院在线诉讼规则》等司法解释，对新的诉讼模式进行了系统概括、规范和提升，为互联网诉讼制度发展与完善奠定了良好基础。随着我国互联网法院建设的不断推进，其经验日渐丰富，期待互联网诉讼立法尽早提上议程，这些都对其他国家具有一定引领借鉴意义。
(三)完善互联网行为规制
鉴于互联网案件的特殊性，各国适应工业文明时代需要而制定的实体法，许多方面难以适用。如前所述，我国互联网法院在审理新类型案件基础上，经过有针对性的研究，创立了许多新的实体裁判规则，形成了互联网行为规制的经验。如，新客体保护方面，公共数据、个人信息、数字货币、虚拟财产、智能作品规则等；规范互联网新兴业态方面，如平台责任、付费点播、知识分享、直播带货规则等；制裁互联网黑灰产业方面，如网络刷单、暗刷流量、空包洗钱规则等。这些新规则不仅得到当事人的普遍认可，而且得到了相关业内乃至社会的广泛认同，对规范和促进数字经济的健康发展，发挥了重要作用，对其他国家也有借鉴意义。
(四)展现互联网司法治理体制优势
互联网技术将人类带入了一个前所未有的全新世界，它在日新月异普及发展的同时，也会发生滥用甚至野蛮生长的问题。加强对互联网发展的引导、管控、治理等，是各国面临的共同课题。我国有世界上最庞大的互联网用户群体，在发现问题、预防风险、司法治理等方面，积累了比较丰富的经验。如以司法特有的手段、功能和力量，规范互联网新业态发展，规范对个人信息采集与适用，治理互联网乱象，堵塞互联网犯罪技术漏洞，互联网司法和其他部门、行业、领域信息汇聚与管控、数据流通对接，配合协同，共同治理等，特别是我国有党委领导、政府主导、相关部门协同的体制优势，互联网司法治理有比较好的环境，更能发挥独特作用，对其他国家具有参考价值。同时，在互联网司法治理方面，我们也应继续坚持以我为主、博采众长，学习借鉴其他国家的有益经验，进一步完善我国的互联网治理体系，提高治理效能。
(五)扩大“互联网+司法”新形态影响
传统理论认为，法律具有保守性，不轻易改变或破坏自发形成的秩序，司法也是保守的职业。尽管近几年特别是在新冠肺炎疫情冲击下，有的国家将互联网技术引入了诉讼活动，但总体而言，受传统司法理念的影响和对传统司法规律认识的局限，多数国家对互联网等新技术在司法活动中的应用持谨慎态度。站在人类文明发展的高度看，源自于工业文明的传统司法理论，正面临如何适应、完善、发展的问题。在我国经济社会快速变革的背景下，伴随着司法改革浪潮的推进，中国不仅建立了世界领先的互联网法院，而且传统法院信息化建设、智慧法院建设，取得了长足进步，在技术创新与司法深度融合方面开了先河，积累了丰富的经验，得到了世界同行和有关国际组织的认同和赞誉。联合国开发计划署主动提议，向全球宣传中国法院信息化建设经验，作为实现联合国2030年可持续发展目标和推进南南合作的重要举措。互联网技术与司法活动的深度融合，将对世界司法产生广泛而深远的影响。可以预见，互联网新技术的冲击将势不可挡，中国“互联网+司法”的新形态必将是世界未来司法的先行者、探路者。
(6) Promoting the "common language" exchange of Internet courts
The Internet is characterized by global interconnection. The online behaviors of netizens in different countries are very similar, and some cases have certain commonalities.
With the increasing globalization of Internet technology, there will be more and more foreign-related cases on the Internet.
By handling specific cases, we can express the Chinese voice of the Internet Court, and demonstrate our country's demeanor as a major country that not only maintains judicial sovereignty, but also respects international rules.
For example, the Guangzhou Internet Court in the case of “XX v. the United States XX Company on the Domain Name Ownership Dispute Case” reasonably expanded the interpretation of the “principle of actual connection”, scientifically determined the jurisdiction connection factors of the case, and brought relevant cases into its jurisdiction according to the law, effectively protecting my country’s domain name holders. The legitimate rights and interests of some people have been affirmed by foreign industries, which has enhanced my country's right to speak in the field of international domain name dispute resolution.
The trial of such cases will objectively increase the "common language" of different countries.
On the premise of ensuring national security, we should provide a broader space for mutual international exchanges, and continuously enhance our country's influence and voice in the judicial field in building a community with a shared future for mankind
Author | Jing Hanchao, Vice President of China Law Society
This article was published in the fourth issue of "China Law" in 2022. Due to space limitations, the notes are omitted.
Author identification information is the information at the time of publication.