1. Fragmentation and Sovereign Policymaking in Global Regulation
全球監管的分裂與政策主權制定

In November 2025, the transnational legal and regulatory matrix manifested an unequivocal structural bifurcation, wherein preeminent jurisdictions articulated bespoke institutional vectors, meticulously attuned to autochthonous political, economic, and sectoral imperatives. The United States amplified executive potestates in mercantile praxis; the European Union mitigated its antecedent imperious digital and sustainable finance decretals; Japan proposed reforms incorporating crypto-assets into canonical financial taxonomies; and China reinforced its anti-money laundering and financial integrity bastions. Within technology law and intellectual property, egregious judicial ruptures intra legem Europe unmasked the endemic void in supranational AI governance. In the aggregate, these metamorphoses augur a nascent regulatory dispensation anchored in policy sovereignty, institutional schismogenesis, and heterogenous enforcement canons.

2025年11月，跨國法律與監管框架呈現明確的結構性分歧，其中主要管轄區闡述了客製化制度路徑，精準契合本土政治、經濟及產業性急務。美國擴張貿易實務中的行政權能；歐盟緩和其先前嚴苛的數位與永續金融法令；日本提出改革，將加密資產併入典範金融分類體系；中國強化反洗錢及金融完整性防禦機制。在科技法與智慧財產權領域，歐洲域內嚴峻司法斷層暴露了超國家人工智慧治理的固有缺口。綜而言之，這些變革預示一新興監管體制，根植於政策主權、制度分裂生成及異質執法準則。

2. U.S. Reciprocal Tariffs and Judicial Constraints: Redefining IEEPA
美國互惠關稅與司法限制：重定義IEEPA

Invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., the United States, on November 4, 2025, emended Executive Order 14257, materially expanding the purview and discretionary ambit of reciprocal tariffs. This maneuver displaces archetypal Section 301 (19 U.S.C. § 2411) or Section 232 (19 U.S.C. § 1862) instruments with emergent powers, integrating tariffs into the ambit of national security and enforcement semiotics—inter alia, by imputing fentanyl supply chain perturbations as a causal nexus for trans-domain “enforcement-adjacent tariffs."

The legality of IEEPA-based tariffs remains sub judice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in its August 29, 2025 en banc determination in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump (No. 25-1812), pronounced the reciprocal and trafficking tariffs ultra vires for transgressing congressional intendment, holding that IEEPA does not authorize tariff imposition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 9, 2025, and heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025 , wherein multiple justices expressed skepticism regarding expansive executive tariff authority, with Chief Justice Roberts emphasizing that taxation constitutes “the core power of Congress." A decision is anticipated by mid-2026. Pending resolution, the tariffs remain in effect, precipitating doctrinal indeterminacy for commercial entities, peremptorily requiring provisional duty liquidation under the “assess-and-protest" paradigm, with subrogation of appellate remedies pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(1)–(11).

援引《國際緊急經濟權力法》（IEEPA），50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq.，美國於2025年11月4日修正行政命令第14257號，實質擴張互惠關稅的適用範圍及酌情裁量空間。此策略以緊急權力取代典型第301條（19 U.S.C. § 2411）或第232條（19 U.S.C. § 1862）機制，將關稅納入國家安全及執法符徵範疇—例如，將芬太尼供應鏈擾動定位為跨領域「執法鄰接關稅」的因果樞紐。

IEEPA關稅之合法性仍在審理中。美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院於2025年8月29日在V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump案（No. 25-1812）合議庭裁決中，宣告互惠關稅及販運關稅超越法定授權，違背國會立法意圖，認定IEEPA未授權關稅徵收。最高法院於 2025年9月9日 核准調卷令，並於**2025年11月5日 進行口頭辯論，多位大法官對行政機關擴張性關稅權力表示質疑，首席大法官Roberts強調稅收為「國會核心權力」。預計2026年中作出判決。待決期間，關稅持續生效，導致商業實體陷入教義不確定狀態，強制依「評估並抗議」範式進行暫定稅款清算，並依19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(1)–(11)保留上訴救濟途徑。

3. Agricultural Exemptions and Retroactive Effect: Precision-Tailored Modulation 農產品豁免與溯及效力：精準定制調控

Via amendment to Annex II of the Executive Order on November 14, 2025, the U.S. executive circumscribed an extensive corpus of agricultural commodities from the reciprocal tariff ambit, exempting 237 HTSUS classifications including coffee, tea, tropical fruits, cocoa, spices, bananas, oranges, tomatoes, and beef. This judicious prophylaxis attenuates inflationary pressures in victual markets, facilitates plurilateral concords with South and Central American sovereigns, and upholds an intransigent stance contra China. The exemptions, efficacious retroactively ex tunc 12:01 a.m. EST on November 13, 2025, inexorably compel importers to effectuate forensic recapitulation of post-commencement entries, re-evaluate ad valorem assessments, and scrutinize reliquidation entitlements under 19 C.F.R. §§ 174.1 et seq. Such stratagems incarnate a jurisprudential inflection in U.S. trade lex toward discriminate immunities and iterative emendations.

經2025年11月14日對行政命令附件II之修正，美國行政部門將廣泛農產品類別排除於互惠關稅適用範圍，豁免237項HTSUS分類，包括咖啡、茶葉、熱帶水果、可可、香料、香蕉、柳橙、番茄及牛肉。此謹慎預防措施緩解食品市場通貨膨脹壓力，促成與南美及中美洲主權實體之多邊協定，並維持對中國之堅定對抗姿態。豁免自2025年11月13日12:01 a.m. EST起溯及生效，強制進口商對生效後進口申報進行法醫式審核、重新評估從價稅額，並依19 C.F.R. §§ 174.1 et seq.檢視重清算權利。此類策略體現美國貿易法學向辨別性豁免及迭代修正之轉向。

4. Bifurcated Financial Regulation: Transparency Versus Market Maturation 分歧金融監管：透明度對市場成熟

Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) proposed the assimilation of crypto-assets as sui generis financial instruments under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, conjoined with diminution of capital gains exactions from 55% to a flat 20%, thereby precipitating Web3 capital influx and catalyzing innovatory dynamism. The proposal, encompassing 105 approved cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin and Ethereum, would introduce mandatory disclosures and insider trading prohibitions. The FSA plans to submit this legislative proposal to Japan’s main parliamentary session in 2026 for approval. Adverted against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulatory posture—which relegates crypto-assets to marginalia—these antitheses engender asynchronous policy teloi between Asia and the Atlantic. Multinational custodians are inexorably constrained to erect harmonized minima compliantiae to avert regulatory arbitrage hazards.

日本金融廳（FSA）提出 將加密資產依《金融商品交易法》同化為獨特金融工具，併資本利得稅自55%減至20%單一稅率，從而誘發Web3資本湧入並催化創新動能。該提案涵蓋105種核准加密貨幣，包括比特幣及以太坊，將引入強制揭露及內線交易禁令。FSA計劃於2026年向日本國會提交此立法提案以待審議。對照美國證券交易委員會之監管立場—其將加密資產邊緣化—此對立產生亞洲與大西洋間之政策不同步終局。跨國金融託管機構不可避免須建構和諧最低合規要件，以規避監管套利風險。

5. Technology Law and Sustainable Finance: The EU’s Pragmatic Recalibration 科技法與永續金融：歐盟的務實重新校準

The European Union’s Digital Omnibus Proposal, gazetted on November 19, 2025, portends a seminal epistemological pivot in normative ontology. Avowing the fiduciary encumbrances of prevailing digital strictures—eminently the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689)—the Commission prorogued conformity termini for high-risk AI apparatuses to 2027–2028 and depurated evidentiary filiation imperatives. Specifically, the rules for high-risk AI systems will apply a maximum of 16 months later than originally envisaged, with application conditional on the availability of harmonized standards, common specifications, or guidelines.

Concomitantly, the SFDR 2.0 rubric, proffered on November 20, 2025, abrogates Byzantine disclosure impositions in favor of limpid product indicia to eradicate greenwashing whilst mitigating fiduciaries’ compliantia onera. The proposal introduces three new product categories (Sustainable, Transition, and ESG Basics) with mandatory 70% minimum investment thresholds and exclusion criteria, replacing the current Articles 8 and 9 framework. Entity-level PAI disclosure obligations are abolished, and product-level templates are capped at two pages. This teleological transmutation evinces a doctrinal transposition from panoptic normativity to pinpointed operationalization, mediating regulatory eschatologies against sectoral perdurability.

歐盟於2025年11月19日公布之《數位綜合提案》，預示規範本體論之樞紐性知識轉向。承認現行數位規範之受託負擔—尤指《人工智慧法案》（Regulation (EU) 2024/1689）—委員會延展高風險人工智慧系統之合規期限至2027–2028年，並精簡證據聯繫要件。具體而言，高風險人工智慧系統規則將較原定最多延後16個月適用，適用與否取決於協調標準、共同規範或指引之可用性。

同期，2025年11月20日提出之SFDR 2.0框架廢止繁瑣揭露義務，轉採清晰產品標識，以根絕漂綠並減輕金融受託人合規負荷。該提案引入三項新產品類別（永續、轉型及ESG基礎），設定強制70%最低投資門檻及排除標準，取代現行第8條及第9條框架。實體層級PAI揭露義務廢除，產品層級範本限於兩頁。此目的論轉化彰顯從全景規範性向精準操作化之教義轉置，調和監管終末論與產業永續性。

6. Judicial Schisms in AI and Intellectual Property: Heightened Compliance Uncertainty  AI與智慧財產權的司法分裂：加劇合規不確定性

November’s seminal jurisprudence congealed intra-Union cleavages in the AI-copyright penumbra. The High Court of Justice of England and Wales, in Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. ([2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch), November 4, 2025), adjudicated that synaptic model weights do not, ex facie, engender infringing reproductions under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 17(2), affording AI progenitors substantial navigational leeway. The Court held that AI model weights are not a “copy" of images in the sense required by the CDPA, as the statute requires a recognizable reproduction of a work or a derivative in which it is embodied. Getty’s secondary copyright infringement claims were dismissed, though limited trademark infringement was found regarding watermark reproduction in early model versions.

In contradistinction, the Landgericht München I, in GEMA v. OpenAI ( Az. 42 O 14139/24, November 11, 2025), posited AI mnesic contrivances as presumptively replicative under the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC), Art. 2, embracing an adamantine proprietary aegis. The court found that song lyrics were “memorized" in model parameters and reproducible through simple prompts, constituting unlawful reproduction. The text and data mining exception under § 44b UrhG was held inapplicable as the models permanently memorized protected works beyond transient analysis. OpenAI has announced its intention to appeal.

These diametric antitheses unveil irremediable discords in generative AI’s juridical essence across the bloc, perforce obliging transnational AI progenitors to ordinalize the most stringent jurisdictional minima in hazard attenuation. Contemporaneously, paramount patent adjudicatoria are revising AI-imbricated examination protocols—inter alia, patent-eligibility rubrics (e.g., EPO Guidelines for Examination, Part G-II, 3.3.1) and adequacy of specification (35 U.S.C. § 112(a))—presaging perennial dialectics between technologic apotheosis and doctrinal atavism through 2026.

11月之開創性判例固化歐盟內人工智慧-著作權陰影區之裂隙。英格蘭及威爾斯高等法院於Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.案（[2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)，2025年11月4日），裁定突觸模型權重在外觀上不構成《1988年著作權、設計與專利法》第17(2)條下之侵權複製，為人工智慧開發者提供實質導航餘裕。法院認定人工智慧模型權重非CDPA所要求意義上之圖像「複製」，該法規要求作品或其衍生物之可辨識複製。Getty之次級著作權侵權主張遭駁回，惟就早期模型版本中浮水印複製認定有限商標侵權。

相異，慕尼黑第一地方法院於GEMA v. OpenAI案（Az. 42 O 14139/24，2025年11月11日），主張人工智慧記憶裝置推定為《資訊社會指令》（2001/29/EC）第2條下之複製，採堅如磐石之專有權保護。法院認定歌詞被「記憶」於模型參數中，可透過簡單提示詞再現，構成非法複製。德國著作權法第44b條之文本及資料探勘例外被認定不適用，因模型永久記憶受保護作品，超越暫時性分析。OpenAI已宣布將提起上訴。

此二元對立揭露生成式人工智慧在歐盟跨區司法本質之不可彌補不諧，強制跨國人工智慧開發者依序排列最嚴格管轄最低要件以減損風險。同期，首要專利審查機構修訂人工智慧嵌入式審查規範—其中包括專利適格性準則（例如，歐專局審查指南第G-II部分，3.3.1）及說明充分性（35 U.S.C. § 112(a)）—預示至2026年科技神化與教義復古間之永恆辯證。

7.Global Outlook: Intensifying Fragmentation, Compliance Elevation, and Strategic Realignment 全球展望：分裂加劇、合規提升與策略重組

Amalgamating November’s turbulences, three peremptory corollaries for 2026 compliantia coalesce: (i) intensified jurisdictional atomization, impugning unitary metes for trans-sovereign operations; (ii) a preponderant veer from aspirational normogenesis to exequatur-eligible architectures; and (iii) augmented trans-jurisdictional aleatoricity, preeminently in mercantile, AI, and fiduciary translucency spheres.

Corporates are adjured to prefiguratively construct multi-jurisdictional compliantia tesserae, operationalize instantaneous policy vigils, and execute hypothetico-deductive simulacra to ford the looming epoch of accelerative regulatory cataclysm. To fortify resilience, multinational enterprises should further integrate cross-jurisdictional compliance councils comprising in-house counsel and external advisors for quarterly horizon-scanning; deploy AI-augmented regulatory intelligence platforms for real-time variance mapping; institute annual stress-testing protocols simulating enforcement divergences; and cultivate alliances with industry consortia to influence nascent policy formulations, thereby mitigating exposure to fragmented regimes while optimizing operational agility.

綜括11月之動盪，三項2026年合規之強制性推論匯聚：(i) 管轄原子化加劇，挑戰跨主權營運之單一界標；(ii) 從志向規範生成向可執行架構之優勢轉向；及(iii) 跨管轄隨機性放大，尤在貿易、人工智慧及金融透明領域。

企業宜預先建構多管轄合規矩陣、運作即時政策監哨，並執行假說演繹模擬，以穿越即將來臨之加速監管變革時代。為強化韌性，國際企業應進一步整合跨管轄合規委員會，納入內部法律顧問及外部專家，每季進行遠景掃描；部署人工智慧輔助監管情報平台，以即時繪製變異圖譜；建立年度壓力測試協議，模擬執法分歧情境；並培養產業聯盟合作，以影響新興政策制定，從而減輕碎片化體制暴露風險，同時優化營運敏捷性。