译者：冯苏 北京大学国际法学院JD&JM
审稿：林梓浩SYSU LLB/GULC LLM 
编辑：刘潇阳 UCH J.D.
责编：陈逸漩 中国人民大学本科
WHO ARE TO BE OUR GOVERNORS? THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO POLICE ID
谁可以成为我们的执行官？-- 警察证的知情权
Damonta D. Morgan
In response to Black Lives Matter protests across the country in the summer of 2020, then-President Donald Trump sent federal agents into numerous American cities to “dominate” the protesters. These agents were largely unidentified, lacking both departmental insignia and badges dis­playing their personal identification information. As we have seen in the past, when law en­forcement officers do not identify themselves, they can evade accountabil­ity for the constitutional violations they perpetrate upon private citizens. To remedy this problem, this Comment argues that the First Amendment right of access compels the identification of law en­forcement officers when they perform official duties.
2020年夏天，为了回应全国各地的“黑人的命也是命”(Black Lives Matter) 抗议活动，当时的总统唐纳德·特朗普派联邦探员进入美国许多城市以“控制”抗议者。这些探员大多身份不明，他们身上没有部门徽章来显示他们的个人身份信息。正如我们在过去所看到的，当执法者不表明自己的身份时，他们可以逃避对公民实施违宪行为所产生的责任。为了解决这一问题，本文认为，宪法第一修正案的访问权强制执法官员在履行公务时表明身份。
AUNT JEMIMA’S RESIGNATION LETTER
杰迈玛阿姨的辞呈
Audra L. Savage
In response to the national reckoning on race that began in the sum­mer of 2020, Aunt Jemima resigns and issues a call to all corporations to address systemic racism. In this imagining of the letter that she, as a real Black woman, would send upon her resignation from PepsiCo, she tells her own story as a spokesperson based on racist tropes and suggests that the country is at a turning point. Corporations must do more than issue statements about racial justice. Following Aunt Jemima’s resigna­tion letter is a preliminary proposal for holding corporations accountable for eliminating systemic racism. This proposal is based on ideals found in the Black Church: Reckoning, Repentance, and Restitution. ‘Reckoning’ outlines the reasons to hold public corporations accountable for dismantling systemic racism, reasons that extend beyond traditional economic or efficiency justifications. ‘Repentance’ highlights the need for a new regime of transparent accounting for each corporation’s past deal­ings and present interactions with racism. ‘Restitution’ argues that it is not enough for corporations to be “not racist”: they must instead be anti­racist and adopt an intentional approach to dismantling racism. The core of this proposal is developing certain metrics to gauge whether racism is diminishing, and then developing enforcement mechanisms to ensure the actions are taken. The goal is to create a new antiracist regime for corporations that can be integrated within the existing system of disclo­sure and enforcement regulation.
为了回应始于2020年夏天的全国种族清算运动（national reckoning on race），杰迈玛阿姨(Aunt Jemima)品牌“退休”了，并呼吁所有公司解决系统性的种族主义问题。在这封想象的信件中，杰迈玛阿姨(Aunt Jemima),作为一名黑人女性，给百事公司递送辞呈信并以种族主义的比喻讲述了自己作为代言人的故事，并暗示美国正处于一个转折点。她认为，公司必须做的不仅仅是发表关于种族公正的声明。一项致力于让企业为消除系统性种族主义负责的提议紧随杰迈玛阿姨的辞职信之后。该提案建立在黑人教堂“清算”、“悔改”和“恢复”的理念之上。本文内容也以这三个部分展开。  “清算” （Reckoning）篇概述了让公共企业为消除系统性种族主义负责的原因，这些原因不止于传统的经济或效率理由。“悔改”（Repentance）篇强调，需要建立一个新的透明制度，对每个公司过去的交易和目前与种族主义的互动进行核算。“恢复”（Restitution）篇认为，（公司）仅仅是消极的“非种族主义者”还不够：它们必须成为“反种族主义者”，并应主动采取（有效）方式消除种族主义。这项建议的核心是制定一些衡量标准，以衡量种族主义是否在减少，然后制定执行机制以确保公司采取相应行动。其目标是为企业创建一个新的反种族主义制度，并将其纳入现有的信息披露和执法监管体系。
THE GOALS OF CLASS ACTIONS
集体诉讼的目标
Andrew Faisman
Class actions for monetary relief have long been the subject of in­tense legal and political debate. The stakes are now higher than ever. Contractual agreements requiring arbitration are proliferating, limit­ing the availability of class actions as a vehicle for collective redress. In Congress, legislative proposals related to class actions are mired in par­ti­san division. Democrats would roll back mandatory arbitration agree­ments while Republicans would restrict class actions further.
长期以来，和赔偿金有关的集体诉讼一直都是律政界辩论的激烈主题。如今，其矛盾进一步激化。约定仲裁的协议正在激增，这限制了将集体诉讼作为集体救济手段的可能性。在国会，与集体诉讼有关的立法提案因党派分歧而陷入困境。民主党将撤销强制仲裁协议，而共和党将进一步限制集体诉讼。
This Note explains that many of the battles over class actions for monetary relief can be understood as disagreements over what goals they are supposed to serve. It examines two broad justifications for class ac­tions: efficiency and representation. It then offers a taxonomy of the goals of class actions. The efficiency justification is associated with the goals of compensation and monetary deterrence; the representation justi­fication is associated with the goals of providing access to justice and shaping laws and norms. An analysis of recent legislative proposals demonstrates that congressional Republicans prioritize the goal of com­pensation while congressional Democrats prioritize both representational goals.
本文指出，人们可以从集体诉讼达成于什么样的目的的分歧入手，来理解诸多关于赔偿金的集体诉讼的争论。本文研究了集体诉讼的两个广泛的理由：效率（efficiency）和代表（Representation）。本文接着对集体诉讼的目标进行了分类。效率方面的理由与损害赔偿（compensation）以及惩罚性赔偿(monetary deterrence)的目的有关。而代表性的理由则与提供诉诸司法的途径和制定法律和规范的目标相关联。一项对最近立法提案的分析显示，国会共和党人优先考虑的目标是赔偿，而国会民主党人则更加重视代表性（Representation）的两个目标。
This Note argues that the goals of class actions can be reconciled. It offers a framework for distinguishing between those class actions that are supposed to serve efficiency goals and those class actions that are supposed to serve representation goals. This framework can guide courts toward a more expansive understanding of the policy interests behind class actions. Furthermore, this reconciled understanding of class actions may offer a path toward crafting legislative compromises that are reason­ably compat­ible with the current views of both Republicans and Democrats.
本文认为，这些集体诉讼的目标是可以协调一致的。本文提供了一个区分不同类型的集体诉讼的框架，即一部分集体诉讼应服务于效率目标，而另一部分则是应服务于代表性目标（representation goals）。这个框架可以引导法院更广泛地理解集体诉讼背后的政策利益。此外，这种对于集体诉讼调和式的理解可为立法妥协提供一条新的道路，该道路可以合理地协调共和党和民主党目前的观点。
A COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM MODEL FOR BUILDING ENERGY CODES
建筑能源法规的合作联邦制模式
Kimberly Chen
Buildings in the United States are responsible for nine percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and improvement of building energy efficiency through strong building energy codes can help achieve signifi­cant emissions reductions and cost savings. But building energy code regula­tion across the country is inconsistent: Some states have statewide codes with ambitious clean energy targets, while others have no statewide codes at all. Moreover, compliance with building energy codes is both un­der­studied and underachieved, and many states have out-of-date codes, thus missing out on further energy efficiency gains.
美国的建筑排放的温室气体占世界总量的9%，完善建筑能源立法则能提高建筑物的能耗效率，有助于实现节能减排的目标。但是，全国各地的建筑能源法规步调却不一致：一些州制定了具有野心的清洁能源目标的全州法规，而另一些州则根本没有全州法规。此外，各州对建筑能源法规的遵守情况并不佳，并且许多州的法规已经过时，因此错失了进一步提高能源效率的机会。
This Note examines build­ing energy code regulation at the local, state, and federal levels and iden­tifies the shortcomings at each level. It then proposes a framework for building energy code regulation, capitalizing on existing regulatory structures and respecting state and local authority, while also examining the potential for greater federal involvement. To this end, it draws on the cooperative federalism model that has been successful in other areas of environmental law and envisions a role for each level of government in order to improve building energy code regulation and fully realize the potential energy efficiency gains.
本文研究了当地、州和联邦级别的建筑能源法规，并指出了每个级别的不足之处。然后，它提出了一个建筑能源法规的框架，利用现有的监管结构，在尊重州和地方当局自治性的情况下，审查了更多联邦政府参与的可能性。为此，本文借鉴了在环境法其他领域取得成功的合作联邦制模式，并设想了各级政府的作用，以完善建筑能源法规，充分实现潜在的能源效率所带来的收益。
WHO WERE THE REAL FOUNDERS?
谁是真正的开创者？
Craig Green
Gregory Ablavsky’s Federal Ground explains how the national government and American law were transformed in the federal territories that compose modern Ohio and Tennessee. Ablavsky’s careful research and fresh perspective will make his work a vital reference for histo­rians, but this Book Review also highlights the book’s significance for le­gal ac­a­demics and lawyers. Ablavsky has collected extraordinary evidence about property pluralism, intercultural violence, and disputed forms of state­hood, all of which show that the United States’ legal system was founded in the Northwest and Southwest Territories, not simply in urban centers like Philadelphia and New York. Federal Ground’s anal­ysis of the Early Republic has strong implications for modern legal de­bates. Con­flicts over federal title in the territories show that property law can be used to support governmental sovereignty just as much as the other way around. Ablavsky’s research also affects modern disputes about ad­ministrative government: Administrative structures in the fed­eral terri­tories were vi­tally important, widely publicized, and constitu­tionally undisputed dur­ing the Early Republic. Additionally, this detailed history of territorial government highlights ten­sions in modern originalism, especially with respect to constitutional statehood and feder­alism. Most important, Ablavsky’s analysis of federal territories empha­sizes the strength and in­fluence of Native people during a crucial period of American legal his­tory. Statehood, territorial govern­ment, and na­tional creation all occurred in historical landscapes that were occupied by Native owners and residents. If modern lawyers and academics forget those historical dynamics, they will misperceive the ori­gins of American law and ignore continuing responsibilities to respect and support Native people today.
格雷戈里·阿布拉维斯基（Gregory Ablavsky）的《联邦之基》解释了美国国家政府和法律是如何在组成当代俄亥俄州和田纳西州的联邦领土上发生转变的。阿布拉维斯基细致的研究和新鲜的视角将使他的著作成为历史学家的重要参考，但本书评也强调了这本书对法律学者和律师的重要性。阿布拉维斯基收集了大量关于财产多元化、跨文化暴力和有争议的州地位形式的证据，所有这些都表明美国的法律体系是在西北和西南地区建立的，而不仅仅是在费城和纽约这样的城市中心。《联邦之基》对早期美国的分析对现代法律辩论有较大的启发。关于联邦所有权的冲突表明，物权法可以用来支持政府主权，也可以反过来反对政府主权。阿布拉夫斯基的研究也影响了现代关于政府的争论：在共和国早期，联邦领土的行政结构至关重要，广为人知，在宪法上无可争议。此外，这段详细的领土政府史突出了现代原旨主义的紧张局势。最重要的是，阿布拉维斯基对联邦领土的分析强调了印第安人在美国法律史关键时期的力量和影响力。美国独立、领土政府和国家的建立都发生在由原住民所有者和居民占领的历史景观中。倘若现代的律师和学者忘记了这些历史动态，他们就会误解美国法律的起源，并忽视应继续承担尊重和支持如今的原住民的责任。
DISCHARGED AND DISCARDED: THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A LESS-THAN-HONORABLE MILITARY DISCHARGE
退役和丢弃:不光彩的军旅退役的附加后果
Hugh McClean
Between 2011 and 2015, 57,141 soldiers, sailors, and airmen were separated from service with less-than-honorable (LTH) discharges for mi­nor misconduct related to mental health problems. These discharges dis­proportionately affected servicemembers of color. These veterans and others like them face daunting reintegration challenges when they return to civilian society, as federal agencies and state governments deny them the benefits that usually facilitate a veteran’s smooth transition to civilian society. This Essay adds to the scholarly discourse on military discharges by comparing these veterans’ plight to that of persons arrested or convicted of criminal offenses, who also suffer from collateral consequences related to their criminal records long after their involvement with the criminal legal system. Military review boards, the Department of Defense (DOD) agencies charged with reviewing and correcting veterans’ discharges after service, were never intended to address the collateral consequences of mil­itary discharges, and the laws governing discharge review do not provide the boards with the authority to do so; however, DOD may finally be poised to institute reforms. This Essay responds to DOD’s recent call for the mil­itary service branches to consider the collateral consequences of military discharges in reviewing veterans’ petitions for discharge upgrades. This Essay examines why current laws and regulations are inadequate to im­plement DOD’s call and asserts that reform efforts aimed at addressing the collateral consequences of arrests and convictions in the criminal le­gal system must be replicated in the military. This Essay concludes that, without reform, a permanent class of dishonored veterans will never suc­cessfully reintegrate into society.
在2011年至2015年间，57141名士兵、水手和飞行员因与心理健康问题有关的轻微不当行为而被开除军籍。这些开除极大地影响了少数族裔军人。当这些退伍军人和其他类似的人重返社会时，他们面临着重新融入社会的艰巨挑战，因为联邦机构和州政府拒绝给他们提供通常有利于退伍军人顺利过渡到平民社会的福利。通过比较这些退伍军人的困境和那些被捕或被判刑事犯罪的人的困境，本文增加了关于退伍军人的学术论述。这些人进入刑事司法系统很久之后，也遭受了与他们的犯罪记录相关的附带后果。军事审查委员会，即国防部负责审查和纠正退伍军人退役后行为的机构，从未意图解决退伍军人退役的附随后果，有关退伍审查的法律也没有赋予该委员会这样做的权力。然而，国防部最终准备进行改革。本文响应了国防部号召，要求军队服务部门在审查退伍军人的退伍升级申请时考虑解除军职的附随后果。本文研究了为什么目前的法律和法规不足以实现国防部设立的目标，并指出，应复制旨在解决刑事法律系统中逮捕和定罪的附随后果的改革。本文的结论为，若无改革，不光彩的退伍军人阶层将永远无法成功地重新融入社会。
IMMIGRATION LAW’S ARBITRARINESS PROBLEM
移民法的随意性问题
Shalini Bhargava Ray
Despite deportation’s devastating effects, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) specifies deportation as the penalty for nearly every immigration law violation. Critics have regularly decried the INA’s lack of proportionality, contending that the penalty often does not fit the of­fense. The immigration bureaucracy’s implementation of the INA, how­ever, involves a spectrum of penalties short of deportation. Using tools such as administrative closure, orders of supervision, and deferred ac­tion, agency bureaucrats decide who is deported and who stays, and on what terms, on a purely ad hoc basis. In this “shadow system,” immi­grants, their advocates, and the broader public lack basic information about what penalties are being imposed and why.
尽管驱逐出境具有毁灭性的影响，但《移民与国籍法》(INA)将驱逐出境规定为对几乎所有违反移民法的行为的惩罚。批评者经常谴责《移民与国籍法》的不相称性，认为该惩罚不适用于某些移民违法行为。然而，移民机构在执行《移民与国籍法》时，除了驱逐出境外，还实行了其他一系列惩罚措施。通过利用行政中止、监督命令和暂缓行动等工具，机构官僚纯粹是在临时基础上决定谁被驱逐，谁能留下，以及以什么条件留下。在这个“影子系统”中，移民及其支持者与广大公众缺乏关于实施何种惩罚以及为什么实施惩罚的基本信息。
This Article argues for reframing the problem of immigration law’s disproportionality as a problem of insufficient justification--one remedi­able only by building the infrastructure for reason giving in the immigra­tion bureaucracy. Deportation strikes many as disproportionate because the government often lacks satisfactory reasons for imposing such a dras­tic penalty. But in the system of shadow sanctions today, the government not only fails to offer good reasons: It fails to offer any at all. As a result, the system of shadow sanctions represents a classic case of an arbitrary exercise of government power. Looking to examples of procedural innova­tion across the administrative state, this Article backs prudential reforms to create immigration law’s missing reason-giving infrastructure. With it in place, the public can demand better reasons or proportionality. But the first step is addressing immigration law’s arbitrariness problem.
本文表示，应重新构建移民法中未被充分论证的不相称问题——建立一个让移民机构提供理由的基础制度才是唯一的补救措施。事实上，驱逐出境对很多人来说是过重的惩罚，因为政府经常缺乏令人信服的理由来实施如此严厉的惩罚。而在如今的“影子制裁”体系中，政府不仅没有提供充分的理由,它甚至根本没有提供任何理由。因此，”影子制裁”制度实为政府任意行使权力的一个典型案例。本文着眼于行政国家程序创新的例子，支持审慎的改革，以创造移民法中缺失的说理基础设施。有了它，公众可以要求更好的理由或更相称的惩罚。但应注意到，完善移民法的第一步仍是解决移民法的随意性问题。
THE RIGHT TO CONTEST AI
争夺人工智能的权利
Margot E. Kaminski & Jennifer M. Urban
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to make important deci­sions, from university admissions selections to loan determina­tions to the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. These uses of AI raise a host of con­cerns about discrimination, accuracy, fairness, and accountability.
从大学录取选择到贷款决定，再到COVID-19疫苗的分发，人工智能（AI）在各大领域内做着重要的决定。然而，其使用引发了人们对歧视性、准确性、公平性和问责制的一系列担忧。
In the United States, recent proposals for regulating AI focus largely on ex ante and systemic governance. This Article argues in­stead--or re­ally, in additio--for an individual right to contest AI decisions, mod­eled on due process but adapted for the digital age. The European Union, in fact, recognizes such a right, and a growing number of institutions around the world now call for its establish­ment. This Article argues that despite considerable differences be­tween the United States and other coun­tries, establishing the right to contest AI decisions here would be in keep­ing with a long tradition of due process theory.
在美国，近期监管人工智能的提议主要聚焦于事前预防和系统性治理。本文以正当程序原则为蓝本，顺应数字化时代，主张个人有权对人工智能的决定提出异议。事实上，欧洲联盟已承认这种权利，且世界各地越来越多的机构现在要求建立这种权利。本文认为，尽管美国和其他国家之间存在相当大的差异，但创设对人工智能决定提出质疑的权利将符合正当程序理论的悠久传统。
This Article then fills a gap in the literature, establishing a the­oret­ical scaffolding for discussing what a right to contest should look like in practice. This Article establishes four contestation archetypes that should serve as the bases of discussions of contestation both for the right to contest AI and in other policy contexts. The contestation archetypes vary along two axes: from contestation rules to stand­ards and from emphasizing pro­cedure to establishing substantive rights. This Article then discusses four processes that illustrate these archetypes in practice, including the first in-depth consideration of the GDPR’s right to contestation for a U.S. audi­ence. Finally, this Article integrates findings from these investigations to develop nor­mative and practical guidance for establishing a right to con­test AI.
此外，本文填补了文献中的空白，为讨论在实践中如何使用质疑权建立了一个理论框架。本文建立了四种理论原型，作为讨论人工智能质疑权以及其他政策背景下的质疑权基础。对于人工智能的质疑权原型沿着两个轴变化：从争论规则到标准，从强调程序到确立实体权利。随后，本文讨论了在实践中阐明这些原型的四个过程，包括了对《通用数据保护条例》为美国受众争取权利的首次深入探究。最后，本文整合了这些调查的结果，为建立质疑人工智能的权利制定规范和实际的指导方针。
继续阅读
阅读原文