本文選題：經(jīng)濟、社會和文化權(quán)利 + 國家義務��； 參考：《政法論壇》2012年01期

【摘要】：隨著人權(quán)法理論和實踐的發(fā)展,人們逐漸改變了否定經(jīng)濟、社會和文化權(quán)利作為一項法定權(quán)利的觀念,開始承認經(jīng)社文權(quán)利與其他權(quán)利一樣具有法律約束力,并在理論上取得了令人矚目的突破。關于義務缺位論,根據(jù)國家義務的三分論,國家履行尊重的義務不再限于消極措施,而履行保護和實現(xiàn)的義務,也不一定要積極作為。因此,國家對人權(quán)保護承擔的義務是多層次的,且無可逃遁。關于資源耗費論,并非所有的經(jīng)社文權(quán)利需要耗用資源,更多情況下,實現(xiàn)經(jīng)社文權(quán)利的最佳途徑是使個人自由免受國家干預,或者通過個人自主地調(diào)配資源。關于逐步實現(xiàn)論,《經(jīng)濟、社會和文化權(quán)利國際公約》對權(quán)利逐步實現(xiàn)的規(guī)定,其真正用意是要求無論締約國貧富,都公平、有效、充分地利用資源,以一切適當方法在短期內(nèi)實現(xiàn)權(quán)利。關于不可訴論,一國不提供司法補救,并不意味著該項權(quán)利具有不可審理的性質(zhì)。形成經(jīng)社文權(quán)利不可訴論斷的原因,主要是裁決機構(gòu)缺乏能力和意愿。而國內(nèi)法院和區(qū)域性人權(quán)法院的司法判例,可作為經(jīng)社文權(quán)利可訴性的最佳例證。時至今日,可以說人們多已從經(jīng)社文權(quán)利是否可訴的討論轉(zhuǎn)移到更加細致的審判和執(zhí)行的問題上。一方面,通過經(jīng)濟、社會和文化權(quán)利委員會的工作,進一步明確了《經(jīng)濟、社會和文化權(quán)利國際公約》內(nèi)容的規(guī)范性,和締約國所負有的國家義務。另一方面,對于那些權(quán)利實際上不可訴的國家來講,更重要的義務是如何使得權(quán)利可訴。
[Abstract]:With the development of the theory and practice of human rights law, people have gradually changed the concept of denying economic, social and cultural rights as a legal right and began to recognize that economic, social and cultural rights are as legally binding as other rights, And has made a remarkable breakthrough in theory. With regard to the theory of absence of obligation, according to the three-point theory of state obligation, the obligation of state to fulfill respect is no longer limited to negative measures, and the obligation of protection and realization does not have to be actively acted. Therefore, the obligation of the state to the protection of human rights is multi-level, and there is no escape. On the theory of resource consumption, not all economic, social and cultural rights need to consume resources. In more cases, the best way to realize economic, social and cultural rights is to free individuals from state interference or to allocate resources independently. With regard to the doctrine of progressive realization, the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the progressive realization of rights are truly intended to require the equitable, effective and full use of resources by States parties, rich and poor, The realization of rights in the short term by all appropriate means. With regard to non-justiciability, the non-availability of judicial remedies by a State does not mean that the right is non-justiciable. The reason why the right of economic, social and cultural rights is not justiciable is the lack of capacity and willingness of the adjudicators. The judicial jurisprudence of domestic courts and regional human rights courts can be the best example of the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights. Nowadays, it can be said that people have shifted from the discussion of the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights to the issue of more detailed trial and execution. On the one hand, through the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the normative nature of the content of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the obligations of States parties are further clarified. On the other hand, for those countries whose rights are practically non-actionable, the more important obligation is how to make them actionable.
【作者單位】： 中國政法大學;
【分類號】：D99

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前1條

1 齊延平;論普遍人權(quán)[J];法學論壇;2002年03期

【共引文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 薄振峰;王學臣;;文明相容視域中的人權(quán)對話——大沼保昭《人權(quán)、國家與文明》讀后[J];安徽大學法律評論;2004年01期

2 聶早早,陳建華;發(fā)展公民基本權(quán)利:中國憲政建設的目標取向[J];安慶師范學院學報(社會科學版);2005年03期

3 孫光妍;;中國傳統(tǒng)法之和諧價值考察[J];北方法學;2007年04期

4 楊亮軍;;傳統(tǒng)與現(xiàn)代的創(chuàng)造性整合——論梁啟超的民權(quán)觀[J];北方論叢;2010年04期

5 占志剛;;同意的概念及其政治意蘊[J];北京科技大學學報(社會科學版);2010年01期

6 ^蘒，

本文編號：1871826