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。     

国际法中健康权的产生、内涵及实施机制

健康权作为二战后兴起的一项重要人权,其发展路径具有从国际法向国内法扩展的特点。"人身的固有尊严"是健康权的正当性基础所在,也决定着健康权的基本内涵。《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》第12条第1款规定的健康权既是自由权,也是社会权,既指获得卫生保健的权利,也包括获得构成健康基础条件的权利;第12条第2款规定只是列举了公约起草者认为特别重要的四项义务,而非缔约国的全部义务。缔约国义务的性质和范围必须结合公约第2条规定的一般义务条款加以判定。健康权的实施机制包括缔约国报告机制、书面申诉机制,以及调查报告机制三种,不同机制对缔约国的约束力不同,综合运用多种机制确保健康权的有效实施是今后的发展趋势。     

The Politics of a New Legal Regime: Governing International Crime through Domestic Immigration Law

Through an analysis of a unique and understudied unit within the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Unit (HRVWCU, or “the Unit”), this article addresses the following theoretical and policy question: once someone has been admitted to the United States and granted permanent residency, or even citizenship, how does the law facilitate the reversal of that decision based on acts committed long ago and far away? We argue that the HRVWCU has created a significant new way to govern immigration through crime—specifically international crime—while simultaneously trying to ensure justice for mass atrocities through immigration law. In offering an overview of the Unit's origins and approach in blending international criminal law, domestic criminal law, and immigration law, we show how this Unit reflects an expansion of crimmigration in the United States and abroad. In order to illustrate the dilemma of internationalized crimmigration, the article focuses on the Unit's cases related to war crimes in Liberia and Bosnia, which have two very different (at least from the perspective of international criminal law) types of alleged perpetrators: those who allegedly gave orders and those who allegedly followed orders.     

妇女权利的国际法保护及其面临的挑战

联合国为提高妇女地位、促进男女平等做出了卓越贡献 ,然而法律上的权利不等于现实中的权利 ,在实现社会性别平等的实践中 ,无论是联合国 ,还是国际劳工组织 ,都面临着诸多挑战。     

水人权:人权法上的水权

离开了水,人类无法生存.因此,水人权是一项基本人权.这已经为国际法充分承认.国家有义务尽可能利用其现有资源实施水人权.尽管水人权属于经济、社会及文化权利的范畴,是国家应当采取措施逐步充分实现的人权,但国家也负有一定的立即履行的义务.然而,在国家层面上,包括我国在内的多数国家存在一个需要解决的共同问题,即缺乏系统、有效的规定和保护.     

正确认识国际法中的人权问题

“人权”已经成为现代国际法的基本概念,对这一问题进行历史的、系统的考察实属必要。人的权利不是单独存在的,它是与物质条件、传统观念、政治传统联系在一起的,同时,个人权利的实现是有层次的,有阶段的。在国际人权问题上,各国的自主发展仍然是主流。     

Human Rights, Free Movement, and the Right to Leave in International Law

This article starts from a rights-based premise: freedom ofmovement is an established human right recognised in a rangeof international instruments. The right to leave one's own countryis one aspect of this general concern with free movement. Thisarticle addresses the status of this right under internationallaw, a right that is enshrined in several different internationalinstruments and has attracted considerable attention. This articleexplores how the Human Rights Committee, the only United Nationshuman rights treaty body that has examined the right to leavein significant detail, has interpreted this right in light ofstate practice. This article considers whether internationallaw requires, or allows, states to prevent their nationals fromleaving their own states by unauthorized or irregular meansand whether such prevention could be construed as a violationof the right to leave. This article also examines whether statescan legitimately prosecute migrants when they leave their ownstates with documents that they know to be fraudulent. The legitimacyof exit visas and regulations related to holders of state secretsis also explored. Finally, this article presents some thoughtson the continuing significance of the right to leave.     

比较法对国际私法的意义——以国际私法的适用、研究和法典编纂为视角

国际私法的对象的涉外性意味着它与两个或两个以上国家的法律体系均有联系.较之其他法律部门,国际私法的适用更需要运用比较法方法进行实体法的比较和冲突法的比较;比起其他法学分支,国际私法的研究更需要运用比较法方法,以探究不同法系的异同和各种方法的特点;国际私法规则的国内立法和国际统一也离不开比较法.本文以国际私法的适用、研究和法典编纂为视角,阐述了比较法对国际私法的重要意义,以及对中国未来的国际私法立法、司法和理论研究的启示.     

Executions and Apologies: The U.S., International Law and Right to Consular Notification

Following the execution of two German nationals in the United States in 2001, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found the U.S. in violation of international law stating that foreign nationals must be notified of their right to contact their embassy. When they learned of this right ten years after their arrest, they were barred from raising the claim; and after exhausting available avenues in American courts, the German consulate took the case to the International Court of Justice. The U.S. executed the two men while the case was still before the ICJ, in spite of its request to stay the execution and German objections that “violations of Article 36 followed by death sentences and executions cannot be remedied by apologies or the distribution of leaflets”. This paper discusses the importance of consular notification to the fairness of prosecutions. Cases reviewed indicate the U.S. still frequently does not provide notification and is at times oblivious to the ICJ's ruling. The paper discusses reasons the U.S. should honor notification, including reciprocity for Americans traveling abroad and the larger development of international law. A final section provides several mechanisms for bringing U.S. practices into compliance that could be easily implemented. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Seeking Asylum at Embassies: A Right to Entry under International Law?

Is the processing of asylum claims at embassies and the grantof ‘humanitarian visas’ within the framework ofProtected Entry Procedures a mere expression of the politicalbenevolence on behalf of potential host states vis-à-visprotection seekers, or do both reflect legal obligations owedto the individual applicant? If so, does international law providefor a right to entry in such cases? In this article, the existenceof a legally binding right to seek asylum encompassing an entrycomponent shall be explored first together with the questionwhether any such right may have any implications on the practiceof Protected Entry Procedures. Second, the relevance of explicitprohibitions of refoulement shall be explored together withimplied protection norms of human rights law (to be found inthe ICCPR, the ECHR and the CRC). The article concludes thatthe UDHR, the EU Charter, the CSR51, the CAT and the ICCPR donot offer any right of entry in the framework of Protected EntryProcedures. However, the ECHR and the CRC do contain an impliedright to access under certain specified conditions.