社会保障权宪法确认之比较研究

社会保障权是一项重要的基本人权,鉴于宪法在保障人权方面的重要意义,以宪法确认社会保障权的基本权利地位已成为一个世界趋势。本文试图通过对各国宪法确认社会保障权的不同方式、内容、形式的比较研究,对完善我国社会保障权的宪法规范提供借鉴。一、社会保障权宪法确认的方式     

Rules for Rights: European Law,Health Care and Social Citizenship

Social citizenship is about equality. The obvious problem for European social citizenship in a very diverse Union is that Member States will not be able or willing to bear the cost of establishing equal rights to health care and similar aspects of social citizenship. Health care is a particularly good case of this tension between EU citizenship and Member State diversity. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) strengthened the right to health care in other Member States, but this cannot create an equal right to health care when Member States are so different. In its efforts to balance a European right, the Court has formulated ‘rules for rights’—not so much European social citizenship rights, as a set of legal principles by which it judges the decisions of the Member States.     

权利·义务:现行宪法社会权的理解与反思

公民社会权的实现必须有国家的积极作为。宪法文本对公民社会权的制度供给,如果欠缺相对应的国家义务制度反馈,则公民社会权的实现便会缺乏必要的权利救济。社会权的实现程度检验着社会制度的优越性,促使社会权的实现的途径法治化、完整化,调和权利与义务之间出现的失衡状态,从权利与义务结构——功能的角度而言,不仅对于公民有尊严的生活,而且对于国家政治、社会的稳定都有着积极的意义和作用。     

论社会权的宪法规范基础

尽管我国学界主流观点倾向于肯定社会权的宪法基本权利性质,但却只是基于"事实平等"应得到保障这样的价值追求上的理由,而未能提供一个宪法规范意义上的依据.因此,有必要通过确立"事实平等"在宪法平等规范中的地位,论证"事实平等"这项价值追求乃是宪法平等规范的应有之意,来为社会权寻得一个更为坚实的宪法规范基础.     

社会福利保障的宪法路径选择

世界各国宪法保障社会福利有两种模式,一种是在宪法中列举各种社会权利的社会权保障模式,另一种是仅在宪法中明确建设社会国家的原则或者类似条款的社会国保障模式。从我国《宪法》的现有规定及其变迁、宪法的解释与学界的解读看,我国属于社会权模式。社会权保障模式的缺陷是随着民众追求平等意识的成长、市场机制的扩展和公民权利意识的增强,社会福利可能借助宪法无序、无限地扩张。通过淡化社会福利的权利性质、转变社会权的合宪性审查的方向、扩展反射利益推进社会福利以及贯彻宪法设立的可承受性、适度性原则,可以推进我国社会福利宪法保障模式由社会权模式向社会国模式转换。     

Basic Social Rights, Constitutional Justice, and Democracy

Abstract.   The theory of rights is crucial as a means of relieving the tension between basic rights and democracy, and as a means of resolving the problem of allocating competence between the constitutional court and the legislature. To some theorists, no tension between basic rights and democracy exists, for the latter presupposes the former. To others, among whom I include myself, tension does exist, for basic rights, in lending protection to certain persons and groups, limit the possibilities of political decision. In this connection it is important to take up the problem of the necessary conditions for realizing basic rights. One of these conditions concerns the delimiting of the scope of institutional action that is found, so to speak, in the space between the constitutional justices and the legislature, the latter as representative of the popular will.     

宪法基本权利的司法问题研究

本文讨论了中国理论界关于宪法基本权利直接法律效力的观点,论述了中国宪法关于基本权利之规定具有直接法律效力立法例的特点,结合人民法院审判实务适用宪法基本权利审判或者应当适用宪法基本权利审判的案例,提出了建立和完善人民法院直接适用宪法基本权利审判的重要性,法律依据、程序等方面的问题,以期促进和推动宪法基本权利的司法化进程。     

宪法权利体系是怎样发展的?--以美国法为范例的展开:司法创制权利的保护

宪法基本权利是一个开放而非封闭的体系,得益于宪法文本之外权利的司法保护,主要包括人身与经济自由,是法官通过对第十四条修正案正当程序条款采用实质性正当程序的解释而完成的.通过适用不同的审查标准,法院徘徊于谦抑与能动之间.先例规则使司法承认的权利在个案中具有拘束力.美国政府与公众对法官创制非文本自由利益并未给予过多的怀疑,法官只是需要警惕防止在抵制一个专断的过程中形成新的专断.     

论人权与基本权利的关系——以德国法和一般法学理论为背景

人权和宪法上的基本权利这两个源自西语的概念,在汉语法学文献中的使用并不统一,这直接或间接影响到宪法引领下的实定法体系内在的系统化和统一性。本文旨在从一般法学理论角度澄清二者之间的区别和关联。本文特别指出,从人权转化为宪法权利要经过四个限缩性过渡——民族国家化、制度化、理性科学化和习俗化。基本权利不仅是人权的制度化,而且它总是包含着以人权为指针,从而最大程度上实现人权的要求。最后,通过运用这一新的分析框架,本文概括性地分析了现行宪法和法律实践中出现的一些问题。     

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。     

Right to Experimental Treatment: FDA New Drug Approval, Constitutional Rights, and the Public's Health

On May 2, 2006, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a startling opinion, Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach, held that terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other available options have a constitutional right to experimental treatment that FDA has not yet approved. Although ultimately overturned by the full court, Abigail Alliance generated considerable interest from various constituencies. Meanwhile, FDA proposed similar regulatory amendments, as have lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress. But proponents of expanded access fail to consider public health and consumer safety concerns. In particular, allowing patients to try unproven treatments, outside of controlled clinical trials risks both the study's outcome and the health of patients who might benefit from the deliberate, careful process of new drug approval as it currently operates under FDA's auspices.     

公民社会经济权利宪法救济之中国路径——以南非宪法法院判例为切入点

南非宪法法院对公民社会经济权利的违宪审查判例受到宪法学界的广泛关注,这种做法具有制度创新和人权保障的双重效应。我们可以借鉴南非宪法法院相关判例,建立公民社会经济权利宪法救济的中国路径。在人民法院系统中设立宪法法庭,在人民代表大会系统中设立宪法委员会,并且在人民法院和人民代表大会之间建立特定的衔接机制,通过这些措施有助于实现中国特色的公民社会经济权利宪法救济。