Implementation of Human Rights Treaties by Chinese Courts: Problems and Prospects

This article explores the implementation of human rights treatiesby courts in the People's Republic of China. The general applicabilityof treaties in China is not mentioned in its Constitution, whichleaves the status of treaties unclear in Chinese courts, andvarying from area to area. In the human rights area, the applicationof treaties at the domestic level requires incorporation. Thestatus of general comments and concluding observations madeby treaty bodies is unclear, too. On the basis of the currenthuman rights legislation in China, the problems and prospectsof four different kinds of litigation (constitutional, civil,criminal and administrative) in Chinese courts are discussedseparately.     

论法院对基本权利的保护

为公民基本权利提供保护,是现代国家合法性的重要来源。普通法院在基本权利保护中发挥着重要作用。德国虽然设立了宪法法院,但保护公民基本权利的职责仍主要由其他法院承担。在没有设立宪法法院的国家,通过普通法院更是为基本权利提供司法保护的唯一途径。我国法院应当通过三种方式为基本权利提供司法保护:如果法律有保护基本权利的具体规定,法院应当直接适用法律;如果法律对基本权利的保护只作了抽象规定,法院应当对有关抽象立法进行合宪解释之后予以适用;如果法律没有作出保护基本权利的任何规定,法院可以直接适用宪法的基本权利条款。     

Regulation of incivilities in the UK,Italy and Belgium: Courts as potential safeguards against legislative vagueness and excessive use of penalising powers?

In recent years, the legislators in the UK, Italy and Belgium have progressively empowered local authorities to subject sometimes already criminalised and harmful, but also some relatively harmless uncivil conduct to intrusive and punitive measures deeply affecting individuals' rights. However, judicial action in these three countries has been recently trying to restrain the (illegitimate) use of penalising powers of local authorities by delivering interesting liberty-safeguarding decisions. This paper firstly describes the (expanded) regulation of incivilities in the three aforesaid European countries. Secondly, it focuses on two criteria that inform judicial review of legislative and administrative action, namely the principle of legality and the principle of proportionality. Thirdly, it examines the case law of English, Welsh and Scottish courts, along with Italian and Belgian courts, and shows how courts can safeguard the individual's rights and freedoms against (illegitimate) penalisation of conduct that is deemed anti-social or uncivil at the local level.     

Police accountability and the Irish law of evidence

Common law courts have differed on whether and to what extent an exclusionary rule should be used as a tool to impose standards on the police. The Irish courts have pursued an uncompromising approach in this area. Basing themselves on the imperative of upholding the constitutional rights of the accused, they have been willing to exclude relevant and cogent evidence on the basis that it was obtained by the police in breach of those rights. This article locates the Irish constitutional exclusionary rule in the broader context of the role of the law of evidence in police governance. Citing specific examples from the Irish legislation and case law, it shows how recent legislative interventions and some judicial hesitancy have fuelled inconsistent and contradictory trends. It concludes that there is now a pressing need for reflection on the respective roles of the legislature and the courts in this area.     

In The Shadow Of Terror: The Illusive First Amendment Rights Of Aliens

Despite a sustained period of peace and prosperity in the United States, Congress has enacted considerable anti-terrorism legislation, which-like past laws based in fear of foreign threats to the national security-erodes freedom of expression. This article provides a political, historical and legal background before examining this legislation and its application in cases affecting the rights of First Amendment claimants. The article finds that most courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have tended to use a formulaic strict scrutiny analysis of the legislation that endorses the government's position that, for example, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, is a content-neutral response to the important interest in reducing the threat of terrorism. The article argues that the courts instead should adopt an analysis based on the real intent and discriminatory effects of the law to find it is impermissibly content based, overbroad and vague.     

行政救济法上不停止执行原则的再思考

行政法上的不停止执行原则是行政救济制度中的一项特有原则。从比较法上看,无论采取停止执行或不停止执行,域外制度设计一般认为其在性质上属一种暂时权利保护措施,以达到救济的有效性。我国确立不停止执行原则的基础在于维护公共利益,缺乏救济过程中对个人权益的保护。我国立法需因应现实,修正确立基础,明确行政救济对个人权益保护的有效性;在此基础上,针对立法问题予以修正,确立复议或诉讼期间行政行为停止执行原则,构建法院和行政机关的停止执行程序。     

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。     

农民弱势群体的特殊法律保护——从农村土地承包法的视角

通过家庭土地承包权的特殊规定 ,农村土地承包法对农民的经济生存权给予倾斜性保护 ,体现了现代社会对弱势群体社会保障的正义原则。但对侵犯土地承包权的救济问题 ,还应在扩大人民法院受案范围等方面进一步完善现行立法 ,以加强对农民的特殊法律保护     

“When They Come for You”: Legal Mobilization in New Authoritarian Russia

As of 2012, the Russian State Duma passed a string of repressive laws on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), surveillance, and high treason. Under this “new authoritarian” regime, a growing number of Russians are investigated by the security services or put on trial for high treason. NGOs face selective prosecution and surprise inspections. While we know how lawyers use legal mobilization in democratic regimes where they can expect courts to be fair, legal mobilization remains understudied in regimes moving toward authoritarianism, where authorities pass repressive laws but enforce them erratically. Drawing on interviews with Russian lawyers, this article examines how lawyers represent two victim groups of state coercion: Russians under investigation for treason and prosecuted human rights NGOs. By examining how lawyers make strategic choices while coping with unfair courts, the random enforcement of laws, and shrinking resources, this article argues that state coercion does not deter lawyers from legal mobilization at domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. Instead, repressive laws push lawyers to reinvent their everyday practices to counter repressive legislation and conviction bias in the criminal justice system.     

Does devolution make a difference? Legislative output and policy divergence in Scotland

Devolution provides large scope for Scotland to make its own policy. Primary legislation is one measure of this. Scottish legislation before devolution tended to replicate measures for the rest of the United Kingdom, with differences of style. Scottish legislation in the first four-year term of the Parliament shows a big increase in output. There is an autonomous sphere, in which Scotland has gone its own way without reference to the rest of the UK. In other areas, there is evidence of joint or parallel policy-making, with Scottish legislation meeting the same goals by different means. Finally there is a sphere in which Scottish legislation is essentially the same as that in England and Wales. Sewel motions have not been used to impose policy uniformity on Scotland. There is evidence that devolution has shifted influence both vertically, between the UK and Scottish levels, and horizontally, within a Scottish legislative system that has been opened up.     

Human Rigghts: A Culture of Controversy

Many arguments in favour of constitutionally entrenched Bills of Rights are undermined by the inherently controversial nature of human rights with respect to their content, their form, and their valence. Even in the case of civil and political rights, the concretization of rights at the level of specificity required to decide particular cases must always be politically and morally controversial. There is no accepted moral or legal method that can be utilized to give the requisite objectivity to the value choices inherent in human rights jurisprudence. Positivization of human rights increases their utility but compromises their moral status. It follows that legitimate articulation of human rights requires ongoing democratic dialogue and decision-making. Although perceived as a stop-gap measure, the Human Rights Act 1998 could facilitate an enduring partnership between courts and parliaments, placing human rights more firmly on the political agenda and establishing a proper balance between the inputs of courts and parliaments which recognizes that the development of positivized human rights must be primarily located in electorally-based politics.     

NGOs,international courts,and state backlash against human rights accountability: Evidence from NGO mobilization against Tanzania at the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights

When nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) encounter state resistance to human rights accountability, how do NGOs use international courts for their human rights advocacy strategies? Considering the overlapping phenomena of shrinking civic space within authoritarian, hybrid, and democratically backsliding regimes, and state backlash against international courts, NGOs navigate two potential levels of state backlash against human rights accountability. Building on the interdisciplinary scholarship on legal mobilization, we develop an integrated framework for explaining how states' two-level (domestic and international) backlash tactics can both promote and deter NGOs' strategic litigation at international human rights courts (IHRCs). States' backlash tactics can influence NGOs' opportunities, capacities, and goals for their human rights advocacy, and thus affect whether and how they pursue strategic litigation at IHRCs. We elucidate the value of this framework through case studies of NGOs' litigation against Tanzania at the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, an understudied IHRC. Drawing on an original data set, interviews, and documentation, we process-trace how Tanzania's various backlash tactics influenced whether and how NGOs litigated at the Court. Our framework and analysis show how state backlash against human rights accountability affects NGOs' mobilization at IHRCs and, relatedly, IHRCs' opportunities for influence.     

Education law: Excluding the child

Education law in England and Wales has remained largely immune from the general trend in social welfare legislation to accord children and young people of independence of status and provide opportunities for their participation in some of the decisions that relate to them. This article examines the extent of the denial of children's rights in this context. It focuses, in particular, on the areas of special educational needs and exclusion from school, including the relevant appeal processes. It sees, in developments in Scottish legislation, more positive signs and expresses the hope that similar progress will follow south of the border.     

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

This article will examine several of the more difficult issues raised by the Freeman case, including the potential conflict between a parent's rights and a child's rights, the concern over legislative intervention in family autonomy, and the obvious struggle the courts are having in making consistent decisions in this area. The focus will be on Canadian child welfare legislation, with particular emphasis on the Nova Scotia legislation, as it relates to the refusal to consent to the medical treatment of a child. Similarly, the case law considered will also be primarily Canadian. The article will concentrate on situations in which the withholding of medical treatment would threaten the life of a child and will discuss the withholding of treatment as it relates to an unborn child, a mentally and/or physically challenged child, and a normal child.     

行政立法与人权保障——兼以行政许可和劳动教养为例分析

行政立法应当以保障和不侵犯人权来证成自己道义上的正当性。为了保障人权,必须对行政立法的权限和目标进行控制。行政立法不得限制基本人权,对非基本人权的限制也要程度适当。行政立法限制公民的权利、增加公民的义务必须有法律的授权。行政立法必须制约行政权力、保障行政相对人权利。在行政许可的设定上必须贯彻法律保留原则,劳动教养制度应当废除。     

民事诉讼中法院的法律观点指出义务:法理、规则与判例——以德国民事诉讼为中心的考察

大陆法系各国的民事诉讼将法院对法律适用的释明称为法律观点指出义务,其与对事实的释明一道构成法院"实体性诉讼指挥"的核心。在德国,法律观点指出义务的立法化是落实宪法规定的听审请求权,避免突袭性裁判的需要。它要求在诉讼过程中,法院应就法律适用与当事人进行讨论,指出当事人在辩论中未提出的,而法院可能作为裁判基础的法律观点,并赋予当事人表明意见的机会。违反法律观点指出义务构成程序瑕疵,当事人可通过上诉、提起宪法诉讼以及提出异议等救济手段维护其程序权利。法律观点指出义务为当事人提供了对法院的法律判断权施加影响的机会,保障了当事人在法律适用领域中的程序参与权,值得我国借鉴。     

When Women's Rights are Not Human Rights – the Non‐ Performativity of the Human Rights of Victims of Domestic Abuse within English Family Law

A large proportion of child contact cases in England take place within a context of domestic abuse and significant risks to victims and their childrenq associated with post separation contact. The legal response has largely been inadequate and the potential impact of human rights law by the family courts has yet to be fully explored. This paper analyses an exploratory empirical research project undertaken in 2017/2018 with Women's Aid England and 72 victims of domestic abuse regarding their experiences of human rights law in the family courts. The results, theorised through the lens of performativity and against the context of international human rights law, reveal a high level of non‐ performativity with respect to the human rights of the participants. The paper concludes with recommendations and the implications the analysis holds for feminist organisations if they are to fully realise the human rights of the victims of domestic abuse.     

Human Dignity and Socio-Economic Rights

The South African Constitution numbers among a very few constitutions around the world which include justiciable socio-economic rights. One of the controversies surrounding judicial enforcement of such rights is the extent to which it is appropriate for courts to engage in policy choices in relation to the use of state resources in light of the doctrine of the separation of powers. The South African Constitutional Court has responded by developing an approach to adjudication of socio-economic rights in which the role of the court is to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of measures taken by the legislature and executive to implement such rights. However, the South African Constitution is also notable for its identification of human dignity as an underlying value and the explicit duty placed on the courts to interpret the rights protected under the Bill of Rights in conformity with this value. This article scrutinises the socio-economic rights jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional court in light of the Constitutional commitment to human dignity. It questions whether reasonableness review in socio-economic cases successfully balances human dignity with the appropriate degree of deference to the legislature and executive, in compliance with the doctrine of the separation of powers.     

Principles,patient welfare and the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000

The law surrounding decision-making for adults who lose their capacity varies considerably internationally. In many cases legislation has taken a protective and consequently restrictive role for adults with incapacity and often the issue of capacity assessment within the appropriate legal framework is circumvented. In Scotland, the introduction of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 modernised that nation's approach to incapable adults. This article describes briefly the pre-2000 Act situation in Scotland, discusses the main provisions of the Act, reviews the use of principles in incapacity legislation in Britain, and discusses issues relating to patient welfare. The use of principles to extend patient autonomy into incapacity is demonstrated and compared with the English and Welsh Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) through a discussion of how the principles in each of those Acts promotes particular ideologies of decision making. Finally, the article examines recent Scottish case law relating to the 2000 Act and discusses how the courts are currently interpreting the principles of the Act.     

香港特区法院的违基审查权兼与董立坤、张淑钿二位教授商榷

特区立法机关应根据基本法制定法律,特区法院审查特区立法机关制定的法律是否违反基本法的权力被称为"违基审查权"。香港的普通法传统为特区法院的违基审查权提供了法理依据,特区的新法治秩序激活了普通法中法院的司法审查权,而全国人大常委会审查权的不完整性使特区法院的违基审查成为必要。司法实践表明,特区法院的违基审查权无法挑战全国人大常委会的审查权,对基本法的实施总体上是有利的;损害特区行政主导体制的主要因素并非是法院的违基审查,而是立法会的强势地位。作为植根于普通法传统、已有十多年运行实践的权力,特区法院的违基审查权无须再通过全国人大常委会释法确认。当然,基于其在特区法治秩序中的地位,特区法院违基审查权应受到特区外部与内部两方面的制约。