生命权的全球化与中国公民生命权入宪研究

生命权是指人的生命不被任意剥夺的权利 ,不同于作为公民最低生活保障权的生存权。生命权是一切人权的基础 ,属首要人权 ,并具有制约国家权力的功能 ,为此国际社会的人权宣言和公约以及世界各国宪法大都规定了生命权。保障生命权已经成为一种全球化的世界潮流。我国现行宪法尚未规定生命权 ,生命权入宪是我国的当务之急。我们应当尽快将生命权写入宪法 ,并应注意正确处理与生命权密切相关的死刑、堕胎、脑死亡和安乐死以及克隆人等问题。     

夫妻日常家务代理权探析

本文论棕了日常家务代理权的含义、性质、权限范围及法律后果等问题。     

论宪法上的生命权

宪法上的生命权与民法上的生命权的性质不同,民法上的生命权属于私权利,只能对抗私人主体对生命权的侵害;而宪法上的生命权属于公权利,可以对抗国家权力对生命权的侵害。生命权的私法保护具有很大的局限性,我们应当将生命权入宪,建立生命权的宪法保障机制。在现代社会,宪法上生命权的功能已由消极的防御发展到要求国家积极的保护,但并没有否定传统的防御功能。生命权的宪法保障不仅仅在于生命权的入宪,关键在于生命权的司宪,建立司法化的违宪审查制度。     

Bubbins v United Kingdom: Civil Remedies and the Right to Life

This analysis considers the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Bubbins v United Kingdom. ¹ 1 App No. 50196/99, judgement of 17 March, 2005. For a case commentary on the admissibility decision made on November 27, 2003 see [2004] EHRLR 214.
In this case the Court examined the shooting by the police of an unarmed individual. The Court had to address two issues. Firstly, did the act of shooting the individual, and the conduct of the police operation which culminated in the shooting, amount to a breach of Art.2? Secondly, in this situation, was the compensatory system in place in the UK sufficient to meet the requirements of Art.13? This case reveals something of the relationship between Art.2 and Art.13, and is relevant to analysis of the parasitic nature of Art.13.     

Rights and Resources—Libertarians and the Right to Life

The author addresses Robert Nozick's claim that: “The particular rights over things fill the space of rights, leaving no room for general rights to be in a certain material condition.” Hence Nozick insists that rights are violated if citizens are compelled to contribute to others' welfare, however urgent their needs may be. The author argues that it is characteristic of libertarian theories that they invoke the moral sanctity of private property against welfarist or egalitarian conceptions of social justice. Nozick's version of the libertarian critique has three conceptual pillars–“right,”“thing” and “space.” On that basis Nozick claims that talk of welfare “rights” can be condemned on the plane of rights. This is true, Nozick maintains, even of “the right to life.” The author contends that this argument fails. It equivocates over the idea of “rights”; and it misconceives crucial features of property. Nozick deploys exclusive “domain rights,” whilst attacking “important‐interest rights.” His historical‐entitlement theory fails as a justification of private property. The author argues that, so far as material objects are concerned, private property institutions depend upon trespassory rules which do not impose morally binding obligations unless basic needs are catered for. Furthermore, private property institutions also comprise monetary resources to which the spatial metaphor of exclusive rights does not apply. Holdings vested in any particular person at any particular time are stamped, morally, with a mix of contestable and mutable property‐specific justice reasons. Hence it is fallacious to suppose that ownership rights together exhaust all normative space over “things.” The major objection to speaking of everyone's having a right to various things such as equality of opportunity, life, and so on, and enforcing this right, is that these “rights” require a substructure of things and materials and actions; and other people may have rights and entitlements over these. [≡] The particular rights over things fill the space of rights, leaving no room for general rights to be in a certain material condition. (Nozick 1974, 238)     

论参加文化生活权利的权利内容与国家义务

作为诸多国际人权文书中都予以规定的一项人权,参加文化生活权利在现实中却处于一种被忽视和不发达的地位,而权利内容不明确是其主要原因之一。根据国际公约的规定及世界各国的保护实践,阐明参加文化生活权利主体享有的人权和国家承担的义务,有助于加深对参加文化生活权利的认识,并促进其实现。     

宪法解释权和适用权是实现宪法监督的关系——英美法系司法审查权的启示

英美法系国家的宪法监督权,通常由普通法院和专门机关来行使,这些机关均享有宪法解释权和适用权,宪法监督主体享有宪法解释和适用权是行使宪法监督权的关键和保证。     

从生命权角度看死刑存废之争

从刑罚学的角度而言 ,当代的死刑存废之争仍未超越报应主义和功利主义两种古典刑罚理论 ;而除极少数人外 ,不管是赞成死刑保留的一方还是支持废除死刑的一方 ,功利论都是他们提出主张的一个根本基础。生命权是最基本和最重要的一项权利 ,而以功利主义为基础的死刑存废之争 ,因为把人权当作相对的和可以为了更大利益而牺牲的东西 ,最后的结果往往是取消生命权的意义。因此 ,如果我们从生命权的角度来看待这一争论 ,则死刑毫无疑问是对人权的侵犯 ,只不过它带有“合法”这样的一个面纱而已。我们应为生命权概念寻找坚实的基础 ,以便为死刑存废之争找到出路。     

Workplace Monitoring and the Right to Private Life at Work

In Barbulescu v Romania, the European Court of Human Rights clarified the application of the Article 8 right to private life in the workplace, and the extent of the state's positive obligations to protect the right against workplace monitoring. The decision establishes that there is an irreducible core to the right to private life at work that does not depend on an employee's reasonable expectations of privacy, and sets out clear principles for striking a fair balance between Article 8 and the employer's interests in the context of workplace monitoring. This article considers the nature of states’ positive obligation to protect human rights at work, the scope of the right to private life, and the impact of the decision on domestic law of unfair dismissal.     

Lost on the Way Home? The Right to Life in Northern Ireland

This article starts from the premise that, through the Belfast Agreement, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) was invested with a 'transitional justice' function in Northern Ireland, unlike in the rest of the United Kingdom. The article evaluates how far the HRA has met this challenge by examining a case study of the right to life. The European Court's development of a procedural aspect to the right to life in the form of a right to an effective investigation, has implicated both institutional reform for the future, and also a need to revisit past state killings with their 'transitional justice' implications. There have been some positive developments, but, despite this, domestic institutions and courts have largely failed to deliver on Article 2's procedural aspect. The article concludes by questioning whether the very design of the HRA has limited the possibilities for a 'transformational constitutionalism' capable of incorporating Article 2's procedural right.     

生命权宪法保障的理论基础研究

生命神圣论和生命质量论是生命权宪法保障的伦理学基础,自然法思想和自由主义是生命权宪法保障的哲学基础,公权利论和宪法至上论是生命权宪法保障的宪法学基础。宪法上的生命权具有私法保护所没有的防御和对抗国家权力的公权利功能,而且它具有其他公法保护所不具备的独特价值,它监督审查所有部门法对生命权的保护是否违宪,这是生命权非有宪法保障不可的根本原因。     

论孙子女和外孙子女的继承权

理论界及司法界均存在着孙子女、外孙子女不属于法定继承人的错误观念,究其原因,主要是我国现行继承法在立法技术上的缺陷造成的.为了防止取消、限制孙子女、外孙子女的继承权的现象发生,保护他们的合法权益,在思想上必须正确理解继承法与婚姻法相互间的关系,把握确定继承权的依据;在立法上应尽快补充完善继承法,明确规定孙子女、外孙子女享有法定继承权,清晰指明代位继承人的法定继承顺序.     

A Foetal Right to Life? The Case of Vo v France

This article examines the scope of application of Article 2of the European Convention on Human Rights, to the unborn foetus.The focus of the articles is on the case of Vo v France, and,in particular, on the jurisprudence of the European Court ofHuman Rights on a state's obligation to protect life in respectof both voluntary and involuntary, negligent terminations ofpregnancies. The last part of the article reviews abortion lawsin Europe and the US and suggests that a gradualist moral perspectiveon the status of the embryo could justify the imposition ofcriminal penalties for foetal death caused by violent conductagainst a pregnant woman without prejudice to the rights ofthe woman.     

乡土生活场域中的集体财产:从权力到权利

我国目前的农村集体财产处于由行政权力与村社干部权力交织而成的权力网络之中,集体所有权变成残缺的、异化的所有权。在我国未来的民法典中,集体所有权应当是蕴涵了主体独立、平等、意志自由等私法价值理念的真正意义上的财产所有权,行政权力对集体财产不必要的束缚应逐步解除;为了防止所有权的异化,应当赋予集体所有权一定的程序性内涵,为其设置一套有效的运作程序;此外,应设置相关规则防止集体所有权压制农民作为个体对集体财产所享有的权利———用益物权。     

价值体系中的堕胎规制——生命权与自我决定权、国家利益的宪法考量

堕胎的规制模式大致可分为国家放任模式、国家许可模式和有限制的国家放任模式。这些模式的背后都有着自身的一些独特考量,模式的选取与其社会传统、对胎儿是否为人、宪法权利是否具有积极性、国家是否负有某种保护义务等诸多因素的认知密切相关。目前我国基本上是放任孕妇堕胎。然而,宪法却要求国家履行其对生命的保护义务。鉴于法律应该在社会现实和价值诉求之间寻求合理的互动和对话,我国应该在保护胎儿的生命、孕妇的自我决定权以及国家利益之间进行更为适当的权衡,对我国所施行的堕胎规制模式做出适当的调整。     

Governance through Publicity: Anti-social Behaviour Orders, Young People, and the Problematization of the Right to Anonymity

Since the early twentieth century, young people under eighteen involved in legal proceedings have been granted a degree of protection from the glare of media publicity. One controversial consequence of recent reforms of the anti-social behaviour order (ASBO), however, is the incremental reduction in the anonymity rights available to those subject to the mechanism, together with calls by the Home Office for details of such individuals to be publicized as a matter of course. Numerous commentators have criticized the government accordingly for reinstating the draconian practice of 'naming and shaming'. This paper contends that these developments can be usefully analysed through the lens of Foucault's work on state governance. It explores, in particular, how challenges to the right reflect both the fall of anonymity and the rise of publicity in the governance of what I term 'ASBO subjects', together with the communities in which they live, under 'advanced liberal' rule.