比例原则释义学结构构建及反思

比例原则作为现代公法上的一个很重要的原则，其释义学结构一般被认为是由三个亚原则构成，即适当性、必要性及狭义比例原则。由于法律原则的抽象性和概括性，对于这三个次要原则，尤其是必要性原则及狭义比例原则的细致内涵还应作一说明，以消除适用时的分歧，而这也是使比例原则能够在实践中得到准确适用的一个基本前提和必要步骤。     

Banning political parties in a democratic constitutional state: the second NPD ban proceedings in a comparative perspective

ABSTRACT

Backes’s article discusses the judgement of the Second Senate of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) of 17 January 2017—not to ban the right-wing extremist party Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD)—in light of recent lively international debates on the protection of democracy. It considers the logic of an examination of proportionality as established by German constitutional law, considering aspects of the legitimacy, suitability, necessity and appropriateness of the party ban. The article shows that the newly introduced criterion of ‘potentiality’ requires an examination of proportionality even if the court itself denies this. Thus the threshold for intervention has been raised, moderately, since a concrete or even immediate threat as defined in police law is not required. The Court links the definition of a free democratic basic order more closely to the established minimum definitions of comparative research and provides clarification that further refutes the (exaggerated) accusation of ‘vagueness’. In doing so it has sharpened the contours of the concept of militant democracy that is widely regarded in international comparative studies.     

‘Yeah but,no but’ – Pinnock and Powell in the Supreme Court

This note considers the Supreme Court decisions in Manchester CC v Pinnock and Hounslow LBC v Powell. It is argued that there are a number of remaining outstanding questions around proportionality, including: deference; section 89, Housing Act 1980; procedural issues; ‘publicness’; and the future landscape.     

试论比例原则在劳动合同解除中的应用

劳动合同解除是劳动合同法律制度的重要问题之一,作为行政法学"帝王条款"的比例原则,试图研究其在劳动合同解除中的应用可能性与具体机制,以期为完善我国劳动合同解除制度提出有益的建议。     

预防性犯罪化立法:路径、功能、弊端与完善

预防性犯罪化立法作为我国近年来刑法立法的重要实践,在预防犯罪方面发挥了极其重要的作用。我国预防性犯罪化立法主要有预备行为犯罪化、持有行为犯罪化、煽动行为犯罪化、抽象危险犯这四种实践方式,具有抵御日益积聚的刑事风险、实现刑罚双面预防目的、贯彻宽严相济刑事政策的重要刑法功能。然而,预防性犯罪化立法又存在着引发刑法工具主义滥觞、冲击谦抑主义刑法精神的弊端。随着风险社会的到来,预防性犯罪化立法还将呈现扩张趋势,探索预防性犯罪化立法的科学有效路径势在必行。就未来的预防性犯罪化立法而言,必须以宪法为引领,以刑法的基本原则为遵循,并采取多轨制的刑法立法模式。     

房产调控如何通过比例原则之门——以宪法文本和弱势者保护为视角

文章基于宪法33条解释出中国比例原则的文本基础和三项内涵，宪法45条解释出“弱势权利保护条款”。根据比例原则三阶理论之分析，以保障GDP增长为目的的房产调控政策中的提高首次购房者首付比例、获得房贷与获得一定年限的纳税证明或缴纳社保证明挂钩等政策均有违保护弱势者权利条款。需重视对弱势者利益，调整相关政策，方可保证措施正当性。     

论警察法上的比例原则

比例原则是控制警察执法中裁量权行使的基本原则,它使警察执法从形式法治走向了实质法治.比例原则的基本含义学界基本认识一致,比例原则在我国警察法上经历了三个发展阶段.在警察立法、执法、行政复议和行政诉讼等警察法律实施的各个环节对比例原则加以运用,将对我国警察法律制度的完善和警察裁量权的规范行使大有裨益.     

比例原则的理论基础探析——以宪政哲学与公法精神为视角

比例原则不是凭空而来的,其产生、发展都离不开一定的文化传统背景。作为一个公法上的原则,由于其探讨的是国家权力与公民权利的关系,而国家权力与公民权利之间的关系是宪政哲学乃至公法哲学的基础,因此,比例原则是立基于宪政基础之上的。此外,在现代公法体系中,法治原则、宪政思想的确立及人性尊严、基本权利保护的确立,成为现代公法精神的载体,是公法追求的内在价值,这些也为比例原则提供了坚实的法精神基础。     

Electing the Electorate: The Problem of Prisoner Disenfranchisement

The issue of prisoner disenfranchisement is examined in the light of the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v UK . It is argued that the arguments in favour of denying prisoners the right to vote lack plausibility. Prisoner disenfranchisement cannot be coherently defended on the justifications of punishment or on the grounds of risk. On the contrary, matters of principle and policy considerations favour the re-enfranchisement of convicted prisoners.     

“Hand-to-mouth” citizenship: decision time for the UK Supreme Court on the substance of Zambrano rights,EU citizenship and equal treatment

UK benefit rules strip Zambrano residence rights, for UK national children and their third country national primary carers, of equal treatment entitlement. These rules are challenged in a case pending before the UK Supreme Court. This piece argues that Zambrano creates an EU-citizenship-based right to reside which necessarily entails equal treatment. UK national children in Zambrano families fall within the scope of EU law so are not prevented by the wholly internal rule from claiming equal treatment with EU national children in Teixeira families. And they are protected by equal treatment as a general principle of EU law, which requires equal treatment with other UK national children. The justifications for automatic unequal treatment put forward before, and accepted with alacrity by, the Court of Appeal, are poorly reasoned and ill-matched with the rules in question – most notably because Zambrano families may have strong connections with the UK. A CJEU reference is likely; a Zambrano right is the right to reside in the Union – it is the right to have EU rights. The substance of EU citizenship is at stake.