家庭权的私法保障

宪法对家庭的保护意味着既禁止国家对其实施直接侵害,又要求国家颁布法律以落实宪法精神。《婚姻法》作为规范家庭成员权利义务关系的基本法,其关于家庭的制度构建及完善直接影响着公民家庭权益的实现。我国应借鉴国际社会家庭形式多元化与子女利益最大化之理念,弥补传统法的缺陷,完善家庭扶养制度,实现家庭养老与社会保障的互为补充;拓展家庭的法律内涵,赋予同居伴侣平等的家庭权益保护;健全人工生殖规范,明确人工生殖子女的法律地位;完善家庭暴力的防治立法,让家庭和谐在私法自治与公权干预的最佳平衡间实现。     

Falling into Line? The Hostile Environment and the Legend of the ‘Judges’ Revolt’

In 2012 the Government made a number of controversial changes to the Immigration Rules, which it claimed would ‘comprehensively reform the approach taken towards ECHR Article 8 in immigration cases’. This paper examines the judicial response, arguing that the courts ‘fell into line’, adapting human rights law to the government's aims through unprincipled and opportunistic techniques, whilst inflicting hardship and injustice on working-class British citizens in particular. Four key moves are identified. First, the courts created an ‘incapable’ test which immunised the rules from in principle challenges. Second, Lord Bingham's Article 8 test, in which the reasonableness of any family member relocation was a central consideration, was replaced with a far less family-friendly test. Third, the courts adopted an ultra-lax rationality test at common law, even when the ‘fundamental rights’ of British citizens were engaged. Finally, the courts identified immigration policy as the ‘constitutional responsibility’ of the executive.     

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。     

当下中国宪法司法化的路径与方法

法院适用法律必须解释法律,而解释法律又必须进行合宪解释,合宪解释是目前我国宪法在司法中适用的最好方式,是现行体制下我国宪法司法化的最佳路径。各级人民法院在民事、刑事和行政诉讼中审理每一起案件适用法律时都应当考虑到宪法,进行合宪解释。每一位法官都是合宪解释的主体,都享有法律解释权和宪法解释权,但这并不否定最高人民法院的最高司法解释权以及全国人大常委会对法律和宪法的最终解释权。法院通过合宪解释方式间接适用宪法,不必将宪法作为裁判依据而引用,但应当在裁判说理部分引用宪法条款。法院在合宪解释过程中发现法律明显违宪时,应当中止诉讼,逐级上报,由最高人民法院报送全国人大常委会处理。     

比例原则的中国宪法依据新释

比例原则已被全球法治实践反复证明属于人权保障的利剑,必将成为中国合宪性审查的基本标准。为了更好地推进合宪性审查,并消除对比例原则适用范围与功能的误解,有必要探寻比例原则在中国的宪法依据。通过解释我国《宪法》中“权利义务一致性”“基本权利”“人格尊严”“法治国”“征收征用”等条款的尝试,均不能很好或完全地推导出比例原则。比例原则的本质在于调整权力与权利、权利与权利之间的关系,其功能在于合理确定国家权力与公民权利的界限。比例原则内置于权利和权力之中。通过解释我国《宪法》第51条的“权利的限度”条款和第33条第3款的“国家尊重和保障人权”条款,可以得出比例原则在中国具有宪法依据,属于宪法基本原则。     

美国服刑人员诉诸司法之权利的宪法保护研究——以美国宪法判例为对象

在美国,服刑人员诉诸司法之权利是一项受宪法保护的基本权利。这一权利的基本权利性质并非来自于宪法文本的明文规定,而是由宪法判例加以确认的。从服刑人员诉诸司法之权利领域的案例法发展历程来看,美国联邦最高法院的司法判断决定了服刑人员诉诸司法之权利受到保护的层次、程度和范围,其中1977年的邦德斯案具有里程碑意义。虽然立法和行政对这一案例法的发展状况也产生了一定影响,但司法的独特功能是实现对服刑人员诉诸司法之权利进行宪法保护的根本保障。     

A commentary on the principle of the child’s best interests —the weakness and improvement of marriage and family law

International documents like the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) propose that in mediating on children issues, the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration. In China, the Constitution and the Law on the Protection of Minors have already set out the terms in principle for the protection of minors, however, it has not been defined in the Marriage Law (2001). In order to enforce the commitment of respecting and safeguarding human rights, the child’s best interest principle should be established in marriage and family law, along with amending related provisions.     

The judicialisation of the right to adequate food: a comparative study of India and South Africa

This article discusses the normative framework for the recognition of the right to adequate food under international and regional human rights law. It then examines the relevance of judicialisation of the right to food in India and South Africa. The article observes that while the right to food is not explicitly recognised in the Indian Constitution, the courts have purposively interpreted the Constitution with a view to holding the government accountable to its obligation under international and national law. It concludes by examining lessons South Africa can draw from the Indian experience.     

Protecting Ohio's Children: Ohio Juvenile Court Jurisdiction to Prevent Nonparty Interference in the Protection of the Best Interest of a Child

Ohio Rule of Juvenile Procedure 2(Y) allows juvenile courts to do what other courts cannot: designate additional parties to an action, allowing juvenile courts to better accomplish their statutory purpose of pursuing the best interests of children. However, sometimes this can lead to confusion about juvenile courts’ actions to protect children, especially when courts invoke Rule 2(Y) to stop interference with proceedings. This article will examine the historical foundations of Ohio's juvenile courts, the unique authority that they possess, and the conflicts that can arise due to interference with juvenile court proceedings. Ohio's juvenile courts have unique authority, and they can use that authority in a way that does not conflict with constitutional rights, while still working to protect the interests of children.     

Separated Children: A Comparison of the Treatment of Separated Child Refugees Entering Australia and Canada

Separated children are in a uniquely vulnerable situation. Notonly are they in fear of persecution but they have been separatedfrom their families. They are seeking multifaceted protections.Such children need a country to protect them from further persecution,a caregiver to nurture them and fulfil the family role and asociety that will foster their social and intellectual growth.This article analyses the treatment of separated child refugeesin the context of international human rights law as it relatesto children and from the viewpoint of domestic immigration law.The article bases this analysis on a comparison of the treatmentof separated child refugees in Australia and Canada. The fundamentalprinciple of the International Convention on the Rights of theChild is that member states should act in the child's best interests.This principle has two important aspects, firstly, that detentionof children should only be used as a last resort and, secondly,that child refugees should enjoy the right to seek asylum. Thearticle examines the domestic law of both Australia and Canadawith a view to determining how these two aspects are appliedto unaccompanied children.     

个人信息权的宪法(学)证成——基于对区分保护论和支配权论的反思

《个人信息保护法》最终纳入“根据宪法”条款,表征着个人信息保护法律体系在底层逻辑上的更动。民法学上权利与利益的区分保护原理,难以适用于整个合宪性法秩序。应将个人信息权确立为宪法位阶的基本权利,并以基本权利作为针对国家的主观防御权和辐射一切法领域的客观价值秩序的原理,协调个人信息保护的私法机制和公法机制。通过对人权条款笼罩下的通信权和人格尊严条款的解释,可以在学理上证立“基本权利束”性质的个人信息权。但其具体保护则应分别归入不同基本权利条款,作出区分化、差异化的多层次构造。个人信息保护的支配权思维有其局限,告知同意模式的式微是重要表现。应将个人信息权的规范目标调整为人格的自由发展,指向免于他人的人格干预。从支配权到人格发展权的思维转换,有助于规制对已收集信息的不当利用、破除“信息茧房”、缓和个人信息保护与利用之间的紧张,以及在“个人—平台—国家”的三方关系中有效保护个人的自决,同时为数据产业保留发展空间。     

中国宪法应如何设置人权

基于中国的人权实践 ,对比两国际人权公约与中国宪法 ,中国宪法对人权保护的空间有待大大拓展 ,人权入宪应为新一轮修宪的最主要议题之一。设置人权有四类七种选择方案 ,宪法人权一般条款 +法律设置当是目前中国设置人权的可行模式。就修宪而言 ,应在宪法序言和总纲中分别加上人权一般条款 ,内容分别为 :尊重和保护人权 ,促进实现人权 ;国家权力受人权直接约束。     

宪法“人格尊严”条款的规范地位之辨

规范地位是指某一条款在基本权利内部乃至宪法规范体系中的效力,取决于该条款在特定宪法秩序中的法律属性。尊严条款因其法理基础、宪法文本表述及宪法解释实践的差异在各国宪法上享有不同的地位,归纳起来可分为宪法原则、基础价值、规定功能的宪法概念。我国宪法第38条人格尊严的哲学基础不同于其他国家的人是目的、人格发展、交往理论,而是着重于个人的名誉与荣誉保护;宪法文本表述并非人的尊严、人性尊严,而是人格尊严,且该条既未规定在总纲中,亦未置于"公民的基本权利和义务"一章之首,即使与"国家尊重与保护人权"一款结合起来阅读,亦无法取得与其它国家宪法上的规范地位。人格尊严在我国宪法上属于独立条款,也是公民的一项基本权利,具有具体的法律内容,在宪法解释过程中可作为规范与特定宪法事实相涵摄,证明公民的人格尊严受到了侵犯。     

谈现代科技的发展与宪法(学)的关系

现代科技发展十分迅猛,对宪法和宪法学都带来了深刻的影响。文章两位作者就现代科技发展对宪法(学)发展的贡献,现代科技发展对宪法(学)的冲击和挑战,特别是器官移植与生命权、克隆人与宪法价值、基因检测与公民的平等权、信息传播与公民的隐私权、因特网技术与宪政体制和基本权利等问题展开了讨论。宪法(学)也不是消极地应对科技的发展,而是积极地回应,一方面给现代科技的发展提供支持,另一方面也为限制现代科技发展的负面效应提出有效的对策。现代科技的发展应该回归到宪法的价值体制之内。     

The influence of the rulings of the Constitutional Court on the development of health law in Lithuania

This article highlights some recent developments in the constitutional doctrine of the right to health care in Lithuania, and more in particular the impact of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania on the development of health law. The right to health care, enshrined in the Constitution, is both an obligation of the state and an individual right. The Constitutional Court has developed a doctrine of the right to health care, as well a doctrine of certain other constitutional social rights, which is based on the understanding of the close interrelation between the different constitutional rights, the principle of indivisibility and equal importance of these rights, and the presumption of justiciability of social rights. The analysis is based on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. Two cases on the disputes of the legal regulation concerning the pharmaceutical activities are presented in more detail.     

宪法基本权利与民事权利之互动原因研究——以人格权为分析进路

宪法基本权利与民事权利之间的双向互动关系是宪法与民法之间关系的缩影,对其互动原因的分析研究,旨在探求影响和决定公法与私法、宪法与民法之互动关系背后的深层原因,从而厘清影响我国当前法治建设进程的相关理论观点。现代以来,随着国家职能的变迁和社会关系的日益复杂,传统的公私法二分式结构渐趋模糊,市民社会与政治国家之间的界限已不再分明,社会福利国家理论的兴起为宪法基本权利与民事权利、宪法与民法、公法与私法之间的互动和交流提供了现实的物质基础和广泛的作用空间。基于理论和实践层面的双重需求,现代国家更多地介入到了私权领域和经济社会生活中而冲破了原有的理论和制度对国家公权所埋设下的层层藩篱,由此导致了公私法在现代社会的各个层面上的互动和交融。     

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.     

论我国学术自由的宪法基础

《中华人民共和国宪法》第47条规定的科学研究自由,目前被学者们诠释为文化权利或者文化权利的组成部分,而文化权利这一范畴不仅被我国宪法学者指称宪法第47条规定的自由,还被人权法学者用来解读国际人权法中的有关权利,并且具有内涵模糊、外延不确定、宪法规定与国际人权法的规定不一致的特点,弱化了科学研究自由的独立价值和功能。笔者认为,我国宪法中规定的科学研究自由,在外国宪法中多规定为学术自由或学问自由,因此可以吸收和移植域外宪法学理论关于学术自由的诠释资源,来丰富我国科学研究自由的权利内涵。遵循宪法解释学的路径,运用基本权利的客观价值秩序理论,可以架起科学研究自由通往我国高等教育制度的桥梁,以科学研究自由为宪法基石构筑我国现代大学法制,从根本上破解我国高等教育"行政化"的顽疾。     

Unique Role of the Court

The court is a unique and vital institution within the American system of government. The court's fundamental responsibility is to assure that all members of society are protected under law from harm by others. Juvenile and family courts have, within this system, the equally important responsibility to protect the best interests of children, families, and communities. These responsibilities convey to the courts a role vital to our anti-substance abuse efforts on behalf of society and especially on behalf of children and their families. Such efforts must recognize the existence of non-traditional, as well as traditional, family units within today's society.     

宪法作为行政法直接渊源论析

宪法作为行政法直接渊源是在技术层面所作的分析,对于宪法的实施与实现以及解决宪法与行政法的关系有深层次意义。它具有体现宪法规制力、弥补行政法不足、将宪法权利类型化、构造一国法治体系的价值。当然,鉴于宪法与行政法的质的区别,宪法原则、宪法中的政治性条款、宪法中的非行政性规则不能作为行政法的直接渊源。