国家权力与人的尊严

国家权力也有尊严,但不能高于人的尊严,更不能建立在侵犯人的尊严基础之上。侵犯人的尊严有私人间的个体侵犯、当权者的侵犯、"上位者"的侵犯、多数人的侵犯等等。国家权力直接侵犯或参与侵犯人格尊严往往危害更大,而最严重的侵犯人格尊严多发生在国家权力与民间联手之时。宪法保障人格尊严意味着国家权力不仅不能侵犯人的尊严,还有保障人的尊严之义务。     

人权视野下传统工具主义刑法观之价值超越——对“许霆案”有罪判决的批判与反思

“法无明文规定不为罪”是罪刑法定原则的核心内涵。许霆无罪是贯彻和落实罪刑法定原则的应有之意。“许霆案”有罪判决的根源在于传统工具主义刑法观偏颇运行。超越传统工具主义刑法观，必须以维护人性尊严为前提，以树立目的权利观为核心，重新建构刑法机能的价值序列。     

论廉洁政治与人民尊严

现代社会的文明与进步,不仅取决于廉洁政治的建设力度,也取决于人民尊严的实现程度。廉洁政治是我党一贯坚持的鲜明政治立场和基本要求;人民尊严的实现是一个认识不断深化和实践推进的过程;廉洁政治是实现人民尊严的必然选择和政治保证;实现人民尊严是廉洁政治的必然要求和价值基础;廉洁政治和实现人民尊严在历史进程、本质内容、理想目标上具有内在统一性。     

培育健康心态,化解城管与摊贩的矛盾

在快速城镇化进程中,城市管理者与被管理者之间的矛盾冲突呈现出显性化趋势。城管与摊贩矛盾冲突产生的原因是复杂多样的,其涉及到经济、社会、法律、体制等各个方面,其中,不良的社会心态是引发两者矛盾的重要社会因素。培育宽容理性的社会心态,让每个人有尊严地生活是化解城管与摊贩矛盾冲突的社会基础。     

民生哲学视域下的创新社会管理研究

社会管理创新的根本目标是改善民生,提升政府的社会管理水平。从民生视角来看,创新社会管理的民生基础是人性尊严,民生目标是还富于民,民生保障是还权于民,民生途径是公民参与。从民生角度提出创新社会管理的渠道和办法有很强的现实性和可操作性,有利于民生型服务型政府的创建。     

Human Rights and Postmodern Utopia

Human rights have triumphed globally but no other historical period has witnessed greater violations of their principles. Exploring this paradox through the work of Ernst Bloch and by using the psychoanalytical concept of the imaginary, the essay argues that human rights express the utopian hope for a society in which people are no longer degraded and despised. This hope however has been hijacked by governments, submerged into treaties and conventions and often leads to the dismembering and reassembly of people into synthetic entities-carriers of rights. The postmodern utopia is the hope of an (impossible) future existential unity. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

为本之人人本之为

人首先是一种生命的存在,也是一种感性和社会存在.中国语境下的以人为本,就是消除我国长期存在的专制主义传统影响,尽快形成权利本位的现代公民社会;关注人的生存状态,救济弱势群体;克服传统工业化所造成的生态危机,坚持走可持续发展之路.以人为本,就是要为人之生命之本、尊严之本、权利之本以及生存之本.     

作为基本权利的人格尊严及其规范意涵——以“卖淫女示众事件”为例

人格尊严早已入宪,成为中国宪法上的基本权利,但其对政府行为的规制功能远未显现出来。结合深圳"卖淫女示众事件",基于规范法学的立场,通过阐释我国《宪法》第38条的意旨与内涵——作为基本权利的人格尊严(一般人格权)所具有的规范功能,归纳出宪法上人格权保护体系之逻辑结构,即规定"人格尊严(一般人格权)+某些具体人格权"应成为宪法对人格权进行调整的模式,以期对学界在此问题上存在的一些歧见予以澄清。     

Observing the Breach: Dignity and the Limits of Political Theology

This paper draws together a number of debates concerning ‘dignity’. It points to reasons for the endurance of the concept of dignity, and thereby indicates some limits to analysis via political theology. Dignity is incongruous in law and ethics: it is naturalised theology illicitly augmenting liberal and postmodern theory. At the same time, phenomenologies of dignity suggest that it is something ‘observed in the breach’ when we encounter the diminution of the individual. Political theology would encourage us to treat this appearance of diminution as a point of aporia in ethics and closure in law, ostensibly articulating the loss of ‘humanity’ but in fact revealing nothing more than the reduction of all norms to sovereign decision. However, deconstructive counter-arguments to political theology are possible. First, the persistence of dignity hinges upon perception of loss rather than on any distinctive norms. Second, language games invoking dignity should be seen as performing solidarity. Third, there is a productive instability in the languages of dignity and human dignity. Together, these qualities mean that dignity, despite its theological genealogy, can justifiably play some role in both liberal and postmodern ethics.

TOWARDS A HUMAN DIGNITY BASED APPROACH TO FOOD SECURITY: LESSONS FROM CHINA AND INDIA

Despite almost halving the proportion of the world’s undernourished over the past two and half decades, the number of undernourished people in the world remains staggeringly high. Efforts to address the global state of food insecurity must target China and India, which are home to the world’s highest and second highest number of undernourished people. This article analyzes the comparative experiences of tackling food security in China and India and adopts an inter-disciplinary approach, which melds legal, economic, and human perspectives to food security. Both China and India have made concerted efforts to improve food security of vulnerable populations in the past three decades. These efforts have historically focused on actively promoting grain production, which has been largely successful in achieving grain self-sufficiency and securing adequate availability of food for their populations. However, the contemporary challenges to food security are now increasingly driven by unsustainable dietary patterns and are exacerbated by growing populations, increasing wealth, and the globalization of food supply chains. As a result, the cause of food insecurity is no longer fundamentally about food supply, but rather about the extent to which marginalized populations are empowered with the rights, freedoms, and capabilities that enable them to attain healthy and productive lives. China and India apply markedly different approaches to address the issue of people’s access to food. In India, the right to food movement has gained momentum through the work of civil society actors and there is now a legal right to food. In contrast, in China the right to food is neither stipulated in Chinese law nor referenced to in the official policy rhetoric as the country seeks to ensure access to food by focusing on poverty alleviation more generally through an income transfer program and a non-food based, social safety net to help the poor. At the same time, the Chinese population’s high educational level provides enormous potential for effective interventions and education on nutrition and health. A comparison of the approaches to food security in China and India ultimately reminds us that efforts to tackle food insecurity must center on human dignity, which requires more wide-ranging investment in enhancing people’s capabilities, combined with effective enforcement of the right to food.