德国联邦宪法法院前任副院长马伦霍尔茨先生来访

<正> 应中国政法大学中德法学院的邀请,联邦德国总统访华代表团成员之一,联邦宪法法院前任副院长马伦霍尔茨·恩斯特·戈特佛里德(Mahrenholz,Ernst Cottfried)教授于9月12日在我校学院路校区图书馆学术报告厅举行了题为《联邦宪法法院——保证所有国家机关在宪法范围内行事的守护人》的学术报告。此项活动是本次联邦德国总统访问中国的正式官方活动之一,表明德国政府对我校在中德法治国家对话活动和文化交流活动中所起作用的重视。     

The Court Settles the Case!

The discussion of problems of legal defense, begun this year in the pages of LG, has produced a lively exchange of opinions and has touched on important questions of our criminal proceedings.     

论宪法法院审查制的成因

一、宪法法院审查制的现状及基本特色在宪法中最早明确规定设立宪法法院的国家,是1920年的奥地利共和国。此后,这类违宪审查体制在欧洲大陆法系国家迅速发展起来。除原来的一批欧洲国家如联邦德国、意大利、奥地利、西班牙、土耳其等比较早地实行这类体制外,原苏联的加盟共和国在苏联解体而独立后,其中的一些国家也设立了宪法法院。东欧和南欧原来的一些社会主义国家为配合最高国家权力机关实施宪法监督权,同时也基于地域和理念的因素,曾经设立了宪法法院,实行不完全的宪法法院审查制,如南斯拉夫、捷克斯洛伐克等,这些国家在剧变后更建立了完全的宪法法院审查制。身处亚洲的韩国,由于在法律理念上更接近于德国,于1988年成立了宪法法院,实行与德国相类似的宪法法院审查制。目前世界上实行这类体制的国家为40余个。该体制以德国为代表,故被称之为"德国型",同时因其具有现代理念,又被称为"现代型"、"宪法秩序保障型"。     

The Strasbourg Court and Indirect Race Discrimination: Going Beyond the Education Domain

Prohibiting indirect discrimination has been hailed as guaranteeing substantive equality by addressing issues of structural discrimination and inequalities in a way that direct discrimination cannot and will not. However, Article 14, the ECHR's non‐discrimination provision, does not distinguish between direct and indirect discrimination. Only in 2007 the European Court of Human Rights explicitly included the notion of indirect (race) discrimination under Article 14 in DH and Others v Czech Republic, its famous judgment on Roma education segregation. Since then it has applied the prohibition of indirect race discrimination in a limited manner to similar education cases. However, in its recent Grand Chamber decision, Biao v Denmark, the Strasbourg Court started clarifying some unsolved issues in the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination in its case law and finally applied the concept to the much broader area of immigration and citizenship.     

Constitution, Court, Indian Tribes

We claim that the "constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land." But we also claim to recognize the sovereignty of Native American nations, the original occupants of the land. These claims—one to jurisdictional monopoly, the other to jurisdictional mu1tiplicity—are irreconcilable. Two hundred years have produced no resolution of the contradiction except at the expense of the tribes and the loss to non-Indians of the Indians' gift of their diflerence. This article explores the bear- ing of American constitutional law upon Native American tribes.     

Beyond Technocratic Governance: The Case of Biotechnology

Decision-making processes within the European Union are often held to be technocratic in nature. This article challenges this assumption upon conceptual and empirical grounds. Whilst in the European regulatory field of biotechnology, politicians often seek to define political issues as technical questions and so may successfully evade necessary but time-consuming legislative processes through the means of Comitology; the diverse mixture of national, supranational, technocratic and political interests within the Commission, Council, Parliament and committees, determines that social and ethical criteria do play a role in European regulation. Relating such specific findings to the broader question of European governance, it might thus be argued that the European Union is more than a technocratic regime, and does more than promote negative integration. However, the 'political' within European decision-making needs nonetheless to be strengthened to ensure the necessary and continued inclusion within such regulatory processes of social and ethical rationalities to complement the economic rationality of the internal market.     

Vernon Bogdanor: Beyond Brexit: Towards a British Constitution

Liverpool Law Review -     

法国行政法院宪法地位的确立--兼评法国宪法委员会第119号(119DC)和第224号(224DC)两个决定

行政审判和司法审判共同构成独具法国特色的双轨制审判体系,但法国现行宪法只规定了司法机关独立,而未对行政法院及其独立地位予以规定,从而使其缺乏宪法保障.在就是否取消双轨制、合并两大审判体系以避免造成宪法障碍的争论中,法国宪法委员会以两个著名的决定平息了争论,明确了行政法院独立的宪法地位,显示了宪法委员会在解释宪法、适用宪法和发展宪法方面所发挥的重要作用.     

Dismantling or Strengthening Labour Law: The Case of the European Court of Justice

Abstract: The European Court of Justice is increasingly accused of dismantling labour law. The unusually sharp criticism is mainly motivated by four determining, though concealed reasons. First, the fact that many decisions address conflicts familiar to national law which are however largely repressed in the national context; second, the crisis of the national labour markets and the ensuing attempts to fence them off from the consequences of advancing integration; third, the inconsistent policies of a Union caught between the prevailing orientation towards a distinctly economic Community and the demands of a slowly progressing political Union; and fourth, the Union's difficulties to meet its own claims. As a result, the Court of Justice is more and more distracted from its judicial role and forced into a regulatory function. Hence, it is important to recall that a consistent integration process inevitably requires abandoning national regulations and creating a growing body of common rules intended to realise the common objectives. Further, the Union must more than ever attempt to correct its structural deficiencies and lay down fundamental rights, both in order to give direction to its regulatory interventions, and to limit them. Finally, the time has come for a clear specialisation of the European Court of Justice itself, as well as a systematic review of the conditions governing preliminary rulings, in order to avoid any further instrumen-talisation of the Court for the solution ofinternal conflicts of the Member States.     

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。     

The Heathrow Case in the Supreme Court: Climate Change Legislation and Administrative Adjudication

In R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd the UK Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision that there had been a series of legal errors in the designation of the Airport National Policy Statement. This case note analyses the case from an ‘internal’ doctrinal perspective and argues that the Supreme Court could have engaged more explicitly with the legal issues that arise from climate change legislation for administrative law adjudication. For courts to adjudicate well in such circumstances they need to be prepared to develop administrative law doctrine, particularly in light of the issues of integrating climate change into public decision-making and of scientific/policy uncertainty which lie in the background of climate change legislation.