Abstract
The processing of personal data involves various stakeholders, such as natural persons, personal data processors, and supervisors. These stakeholders process or supervise personal data based on their respective interests or duties. However, because several interests are involved, conflicts may occur due to the value of the data in question. This paper builds a theoretical framework based on the methodology of interest measurement to alleviate conflicts of interest concerning data. It explores, from the perspectives of rights, obligations, and liabilities, the supervisors’ duty of protecting the public interest. Regarding personal data of natural persons, corresponding rights are allocated according to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. For personal data processors in superior positions, obligations and liabilities are allocated according to the relevant provisions of the above laws, and in light of the core of reasonable restrictions on individual standards against society’s standards, the duties of supervisors and protection of public interests are clearly defined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Refer to the Personal Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China enforced on 1 November 2021. Article 4 explains the meaning of personal information and the methods to process personal information.
The Personal Information Protection Law specifically stipulates the duties of the data supervision departments.
(2018) Personal Data. In: Alhajj R., Rokne J. (eds) Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7131-2_100869
Article 1037 of China's Civil Code confirms that the entities of personal information have four rights: the right of access, the right of reproduction, the right of correction and the right of deletion. However, it does not mean that the system of personal information rights only includes the above four sub-rights.
See Chapter VI of the Personal Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China.
References
Auer, M. 2008. Methodenkritik und Interessenjurisprudenz. Philipp Heck zum 150. Geburtstag. Z Europäisches Privatrecht 16: 517–553.
Balla, S.J., and J. Write. 2003. Consensual rule making and the time it takes to develop rules. In Politics, policy, and organizations: Frontiers in the scientific study of the bureaucracy, ed. G. Krause and K. Meier, 187–206. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Banterle F. 2018. The interface between data protection and IP law: The case of trade secrets and the database sui generis right in marketing operations, and the ownership of raw data in big data analysis. In: Bakhoum M., Conde Gallego B., Mackenrodt MO., Surblytė-Namavičienė G. (eds) Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 28. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57646-5_16
Brudney, Jeffrey L. 1987. Coproduction and privatization: Exploring the relationship and its implications. Journal of Voluntary Action Research 16(3): 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976408701600303.
Campbell, Tom. 1988. Justice as rights: Dworkin and MINORITIES. In: Justice. Issues in Political Theory. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19535-0_2
Cheng, Yuan Daniel. 2019. Nonprofit spending and government provision of public services: Testing theories of government–nonprofit relationships”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 42(1): 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy054.
Chhotray, V., and G. Stoker. 2009. Governance Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chrobak L. 2018. Proprietary rights in digital data? Normative perspectives and principles of civil law. In: Bakhoum M., Conde Gallego B., Mackenrodt MO., Surblytė-Namavičienė G. (eds) Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 28. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57646-5_10
DeNardis, L., and M. Raymond. 2013. Thinking clearly about multi-stakeholder internet governance. November 14. Global Internet Governance Academic Network, Annual Symposium. Drake, William. 2005. “Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance.” http://www.wgig.org/docs/book/WGIG_book.pdf.
Fukuyama, Francis. 2021. Reflections on Chinese governance. Journal of Chinese Governance 1(3): 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2016.1212522.
Galaz, V., and J. Pierre. 2017. Superconnected, complex and ultrafast: Governance of hyperfunctionality in financial markets. Complexity, Governance and Networks 3(2): 12–28. https://doi.org/10.20377/cgn-55.
Gazley, Beth, and Yuan Cheng. 2020. Integrating coproduction theory into voluntary sector theories: Approaches and implications for Chinese governance. Journal of Chinese Governance 5(1): 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2019.1673998.
Gazley, Beth, and Yuan Cheng. 2020. Integrating coproduction theory into voluntary sector theories: Approaches and implications for Chinese governance. Journal of Chinese Governance 5(1): 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2019.1673998.
Guo, Chao, and Muhittin Acar. 2005. Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34(3): 340–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764005275411.
Guo, S., X. Lin, J.M. Coicaud, et al. 2019. Conceptualizing and measuring global justice: Theories, concepts, principles and indicators. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 12: 511–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-019-00267-1.
Heck, P. 1905. Interessenjurisprudenz und Gesetzestreue. Deut Juristen-Zeitung 10: 1140–1142 (columns).
Heck, P. 1909. Was ist diejenige Begriffsjurisprudenz, die wir bekämpfen? Deut Juristen-Zeitung 14(14): 1457–1461 (columns).
Hofmann, Jeanette. 2016. Multistakeholderism in internet governance: Putting fiction into practice. Journal of Cyber Policy 1(1): 29–49.
Meder, Stephan, and Christoph-Eric. Mecke. 2021. Jurisprudence of interests. Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_161-1.
Miles, Samantha. 2017. Stakeholder theory classification: A theoretical and empirical evaluation of definitions. Journal of Business Ethics 142(3): 437–459.
Mula D. 2018. The right to data portability and cloud computing consumer laws. In: Bakhoum M., Conde Gallego B., Mackenrodt MO., Surblytė-Namavičienė G. (eds) Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 28. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57646-5_15
Posthuma, Anne, and Arianna Rossi. 2017. Coordinated governance in global value chains: Supranational dynamics and the role of the International Labour Organization. New Political Economy 22(2): 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2016.1273342.
Sahel, Jean-Jacques. 2016. Multi-stakeholder governance: A necessity and a challenge for global governance in the twenty-first century. Journal of Cyber Policy 1(2): 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2016.1241812.
Sahel, Jean-Jacques. 2016. Multi-stakeholder governance: A necessity and a challenge for global governance in the twenty-first century. Journal of Cyber Policy 1(2): 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2016.1241812.
Sattler, A. 2018. From personality to property?. In: Bakhoum M., Conde Gallego B., Mackenrodt MO., Surblytė-Namavičienė G. (eds) Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 28. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57646-5_3
Stoker, Gerry. 2019. Embracing complexity: A framework for exploring governance resources. Journal of Chinese Governance 4(2): 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2019.1587859.
Strickling, Lawrence, and Jonah Force Hill. 2017. Multi-stakeholder internet governance: Successes and opportunities. Journal of Cyber Policy 2(3): 296–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2017.1404619.
Vörös, Péter., Dániel. Csubák, Péter. Hudoba, and Attila Kiss. 2020. Securing personal data in public cloud. Journal of Information and Telecommunication 4(1): 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751839.2019.1686684.
Weiyi, Wang, and Li Xing. 2010. Ecological construction and sustainable development in China: The case of Jiaxing municipality. In: Clark W. (eds) Sustainable Communities. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0219-1_15
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2013. All justice is social but it’s not all social justice. Philosophia 41: 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-013-9432-7.
Yang, Guangbin, and Miao Li. 2009. Western political science theories and the development of political theories in China. Journal of Chinese Political Science 14: 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-009-9061-y.
Yu, Xiaolan. 2021a. Allocating personal data rights: Toward resolving conflicts of interest over personal data. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-021-00330-w.
Yu, Xiaolan. 2021b. The three legal dimensions of China’s big data governance. Journal of Chinese Governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2021.1988267.
Funding
The author is grateful to the fund project: the National Social Science Foundation- “Research on the Private Law Resolution Path of Conflicts of Interest among Stakeholders in the Use of Data” (21BFX077).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yu, X. Legal Coordination of Conflicts of Interests among Stakeholders in the Processing of Personal Data. Fudan J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 15, 331–348 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-022-00345-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-022-00345-x