公民宪法权和的规范与保护研量——波兰的历史和现实

波兰的多部宪法在文本中确认了公民享有的宪法权利。波兰公民宪法权利的规范内容十分全面,涵盖了公民权利和政治权利,社会、经济和文化权利以及环境权利等方面。波兰公民宪法权利由宪法法院这样一个专门的国家机构给予保障．波兰的宪法法院是波兰宪法实施的核心机构。公民在宪法权利受到公共权力机关的侵害后,可以提起宪法诉讼．请求宪法法院审理,从而获得宪法救济。宪法诉讼机制能够切实保证宪法权利得到真正实现。通过对波兰公民宪法权利规范与保护机制的探讨．我们可以从中获得很多中国宪法权利制度建设的先进经验。     

论俄罗斯宪法法院对公民基本权利的保障

宪法诉讼是现代保障公民基本权利最为有效的方式。在俄罗斯,履行宪法诉讼职能的机构是宪法法院。实践中,宪法法院主要依托宪法诉愿制度,适用蕴含比例原则的俄罗斯宪法第55条第3款作为审查基准保障公民基本权利。此外,宪法法院还常在判决中援引国际条约和欧洲人权法院判例,其目的是用先进的权利保障标准来要求和促进俄罗斯的公民基本权利保障。     

从王春立案看选举权的司法救济

王春立案包含不少宪法问题。我国公民选举权救济中存在救济范围窄、程序定位偏、法律责任简、监督力度弱、裁判组织缺、后续手段无等七个缺陷。人民法院应设立选举法庭受理选举纠纷案件,实现选举权的司法救济。条件成熟时,可将选举诉讼纳入宪法诉讼,通过附带性审查实现权利保护。     

从维护公民权利角度看公民的宪法诉权

公民依据宪法享有的基本权利受到侵害时能否向法院起诉?公民应否享有提起宪法诉讼的诉权?本文从公民应否享有宪法诉权、公民怎样行使宪法诉权以及公民的宪法诉权在中国的现状三个方面对公民的宪法诉权进行浅析。一、公民应当具备宪法诉权(一)公民享有宪法诉权的理论依据第一,就权利与救济的关系来看,享有宪法诉权是保障公民宪法权利的内在要求。“没有救济就没有权利”,权利与救济密不可分,诉权则是人们在权利受到侵害时请求司法救济的桥梁。“在现代社会,居于权利体系中的实体权利与程序化的救济权利已成为两种彼此相依的实体权利”,①甚至…     

试论我国公民宪法权利救济

公民宪法权利是法治与宪政的精髓,要保障公民宪法权利,在公民宪法权利受到侵害时的救济则是最主要保彰方式。本文指出建立与完善我国公民宪法权利的救济制度,有利于我国实现法治国家的宏伟目标与尊重保障人权的法治理念。     

论公民宪法基本权利的司法救济

我国目前并无宪法诉讼制度,宪法确认和保障的平等权和言论、出版、结社、宗教信仰自由等公民基本权利仍没有具体法律予以落实,公民宪法基本权利的司法救济还存在诸多障碍。在我国法制环境还很不成熟的情况下,公民宪法权利的司法救济途径可通过民事诉讼或行政诉讼救济途径保障公民宪法权利。但建立宪法诉讼制度,宪法诉讼救济保障将是最后的一道救济防线,这也是我国实现宪政的必由之路。     

论公民宪法基本权利的司法救济

我国目前并无宪法诉讼制度，宪法确认和保障的平等权和言论、出版、结社、宗教信仰自由等公民基本权利仍没有具体法律予以落实，公民宪法基本权利的司法救济还存在诸多障碍。在我国法制环境还很不成熟的情况下，公民宪法权利的司法救济途径可通过民事诉讼或行政诉讼救济途径保障公民宪法权利。但建立宪法诉讼制度，宪法诉讼救济保障将是最后的一道救济防线．这也是我国实现宪政的必由之路。     

公民基本权利的司法救济探析

司法救济是保障公民基本权利的最终途径,宪法的法律属性决定了它的直接法律效力。公民基本权利的宪法规定可以适用于诉讼。我国虽未真正建立起对公民基本权利这一宪法权利的司法救济制度,但已呈现出了司法救济的雏形。建立和完善我国公民基本权利的司法救济制度,有利于保障公民基本权利的实现和对宪法实施的有效监督。     

宪法程序的类型以及功能

由于我国现行宪法对宪法程序的作用关注不够 ,导致了许多实体的宪法制度无法有效地建立 ,宪法关系不能有效地发生。应当从保证宪法规范的确定性出发来完善我国的宪法解释和宪法修改程序 ,对我国宪法所确立的人民代表大会制度应当建立与之相适应的国家权力运作程序 ,与此同时 ,为了更好地保护公民的宪法权利 ,应当在宪法修改的过程中将一般性的宪法权利保护程序写进宪法。此外 ,还应当建立宪法救济程序 ,以保证我国现行宪法所规定的各项实体宪法制度能够有效地发挥自身的制度功能。     

论受教育权的宪法权利属性及其实现

受教育权是我国宪法规定的基本权利也是《经济、社会及文化权利公约》中规定的一项基本人权。具有自由权性质和社会权性质的宪法权利属性。公民受教育权的实现,要求完善教育法律体系,提高公民守法意识,加强受教育权被侵害的司法救济。     

The Political Origins of Judicial Empowerment through Constitutionalization: Lessons from Four Constitutional Revolutions

Drawing upon an analysis of the political vectors behind constitutional reform in Israel (1992), Canada (1982) New Zealand (1990), and South Africa (1993), the article suggests that the trend toward constitutionalization in culturally divided polities has not been adequately delineated by extant theories of constitutional transformation. An examination of the political origins of these four constitutional revolutions suggests that judicial empowerment is in many cases the consequence of a conscious strategy undertaken by threatened political and economic elites seeking to preserve their hegemony vis-a-vis the growing influence of "peripheral" groups in crucial majoritarian policymaking arenas. In response to perceived threats by peripheral groups, elites who possess disproportionate access to and influence upon the legal arena often initiate a constitutional entrenchment of rights in order to insulate policymaking from popular political pressure. Power is transferred from majoritarian decision-making arenas to national high courts, where they assume their policy preferences will find greater support. This process of conscious judicial empowerment is likely to occur (a) when the judiciary's public reputation for political impartiality and rectitude is relatively high and (b) when the courts are likely to rule, by and large, in accordance with the cultural propensities and policy preferences of the traditionally hegemonic elites.     

Horizontal Effect and the Constitutional Constraint

This article offers a new interpretation – the ‘constitutional constraint’ model – of the duty the Human Rights Act imposes on the courts to give horizontal effect to European Convention rights through the common law. The model requires courts to develop the common law compatibly with the Convention, but only where compatibility can be achieved by incremental development. We argue that models requiring more than incremental development are unsustainable; that deep constitutional norms compel the constraint of incrementalism, which is preserved under the HRA; and that by virtue of section 2 of the HRA, Convention rights function as principles rather than hard‐edged rights in this context. This further undermines the idea that the courts must strictly apply Convention rights and cannot allow them to be overridden by non‐Convention factors. The final section explores the nature of incrementalism in this context and the impact of the model on the doctrine of judicial precedent.     

中国宪法诉讼存在论

对于中国是否存在宪法诉讼,我们不能从严格的西方标准来回答,而应从中国实际出发来分析。在理论上,我国宪法并不排斥宪法诉讼,但是,即便最高人民法院出台不支持宪法进入诉讼的司法解释,在司法实践中宪法案件却仍然是存在的。而且,在建立宪法诉讼制度在我国还存在宪法政治化的观念、制度阙如、宪法依据不足等障碍,宪法诉讼功能也尚未发挥出来的情况下,宪法诉讼却已形成由普通法院审理、不存在违宪审查、无独立诉讼形式和以基本权利为诉求的特点。     

论回避宪法判断原则

作为"权利的宣言书",宪法最明快地保护人权,理当在实践中发挥作用.但即使在宪法审查制度发达的国家,法院在引用宪法上也恪守消极主义立场,尽量回避宪法性判断,在法律层面上处理案件,充分尊重普通法律的稳定和立法权的独立.然而法律的制定常受现实的影响,从而忽略宪法的基本原则,如果盲目坚持回避宪法判断的原则,就会姑息纵容损害基本权的立法行为.所以当基本权受到明显的、持续的、严重的侵犯时,各国法院仍会积极适用宪法判断.这一点也值得国内实务界和学术界适当借鉴,以应付以宪法为诉讼依据的案件和事件.     

National Constitutional Courts in supranational litigation: A contextual analysis

The article examines the role of national constitutional courts in supranational litigation. It firstly illustrates their value and situates well‐known judicial doctrines affecting their jurisdiction in the context of the normative claims, policy agenda and institutional framework promoted by the European Union. Against this background, it gauges the potential of national constitutional courts in countering the process of intergovernmental and technocratic encroachment of national constitutional democracies characterising the most recent evolutionary stages of the European integration process. It is claimed that constitutional courts are in the position of reinforcing, resisting or correcting Union measures with a detrimental impact on national constitutional principles. After having identified in correction the approach more coherent with their constitutional mandate, the article highlights a disturbing paradox: in remaining faithful to their constitutional role, constitutional courts contribute to the sustainability of a comprehensive institutional setting corroding the idea of constitutional democracy on which they are premised.     

论违宪审查在东欧国家转型中的作用

东欧转型在法制方面的一项重要内容是普遍建立以宪法法院为审判机构的集中违宪审查制度。宪法法院通过对宪法文本中法治原则的阐释以实现国家转型的法治目标。宪法法院阐释的法治原则内容具体包括法的安定原则、分权原则、合比例原则、司法独立原则和基本权利司法救济保障原则等五项原则。     

"Constrained" Constitutional Courts as Conduits for Democratic Consolidation

Many constitutional courts, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, have more power than the "constrained court" model of judicial decisionmaking suggests because they operate in an increasingly international environment. By analyzing the Estonian Supreme Court's adjudication of minority linguistic rights, we show how even a new court can act as a "conduit" for democratic reform by identifying for legislators national constitutional paths along which domestically disliked but internationally defined democratic reforms can be pursued, preserving national integrity while acknowledging international reality. International pressures, while constraining courts, thus can free them from national constraints while allowing them to imprint their own vision.     

'Solange, chapter 3': Constitutional Courts in Central Europe—Democracy—European Union

Abstract: Soon after the accession of eight post‐communist states from Central and Eastern Europe to the EU, the constitutional courts of some of these countries questioned the principle of supremacy of EU law over national constitutional systems, on the basis of their being the guardians of national standards of protection of human rights and of democratic principles. In doing so, they entered into the well‐known pattern of behaviour favoured by a number of constitutional courts of the ‘older Europe’, which is called a ‘Solange story’ for the purposes of this article. But this resistance is ridden with paradoxes, the most important of which is a democracy paradox: while accession to the EU was supposed to be the most stable guarantee for human rights and democracy in post‐communist states, how can the supremacy of EU law be now resisted on these very grounds? It is argued that the sources of these constitutional courts’ adherence to the ‘Solange’ pattern are primarily domestic, and that it is a way of strengthening their position vis‐à‐vis other national political actors, especially at a time when the role and independence of those courts face serious domestic challenges.     

宪法社会权及其司法救济——比较法的视角

宪法社会权的正当性及其直接司法救济的可行性是存在争议的问题,不同国家在不同情况下对于该问题采取了不同态度,有的国家仅把宪法社会权作为不可直接司法救济的宣示性权利;有的则采取了“弱救济”的方式,更多尊重立法与行政部门的裁量权;也有的法院在特殊情况下会采用“强救济”的方式,直接判决强制实现宪法社会权。实际上,法院可能会根据实际情况转化适用“弱救济”与“强救济”。在宪法社会权领域,不可过分依赖司法救济,而应更多地由政府根据人民的需要来具体实现。排除了直接司法救济这一必要条件,宪法社会权的正当性难题也就迎刃而解。