本文選題：生命權(quán) + 國際人權(quán)法��； 參考：《鄭州大學》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著人類文明的發(fā)展與進步,重視人權(quán)保護,尤其是珍視生命權(quán)日益成為聯(lián)合國國際公約和國際社會致力追求的目標。而死刑這一我們司空見慣的古老刑種卻由于其對生命權(quán)的剝奪、與人權(quán)保護的對立相向而飽受爭議與質(zhì)疑。國際人權(quán)法以特有的形式展示了對死刑由限制到廢除的態(tài)度演變：1948年《世界人權(quán)宣言》對生命權(quán)的強調(diào),為限制和廢除死刑奠定了法理基礎；1966年《公民權(quán)利和政治權(quán)利國際公約》第6條,首次在國際公約中明確限制死刑的適用；隨后的《美洲人權(quán)公約》以及聯(lián)合國《關于保護面臨死刑者權(quán)利的保障措施》對死刑作了進一步限制；20世紀80年代先后問世的三個旨在廢除死刑的議定書,在一定程度上將廢除死刑上升為國際法規(guī)范的內(nèi)容。本文正是以國際社會對死刑的態(tài)度演變?yōu)榫�索,以國際人權(quán)法對死刑廢除的相關法規(guī)為研究對象,結(jié)合我國死刑的實際狀況,提出我國廢除死刑的具體設想。 本文共分為四個主要部分：第一部分,簡要介紹了死刑和人權(quán)的特點與發(fā)展過程,明確二者之間的對立與沖突,全面分析死刑存廢之爭的各方立場與主張依據(jù),了解國際人權(quán)法對死刑態(tài)度的變化。第二部分,細數(shù)聯(lián)合國在廢除死刑問題上的舉措與努力,將聯(lián)合國相關人權(quán)公約作為研究對象,通過公約的起草背景、討論過程、最終決議,結(jié)合相關的條文評注,系統(tǒng)性地對與死刑相關的重要條款進行解讀,并在此基礎上評價其意義與影響。第三部分,將區(qū)域性國際組織涉及死刑問題的規(guī)定進行系統(tǒng)整理,分別對歐洲人權(quán)法、美洲人權(quán)法和大赦國際等非政府國際組織針對死刑廢除設立的法規(guī)進行介紹,突出這些法規(guī)在某些方面較聯(lián)合國文件的先進之處,評析其體現(xiàn)的進步意義。第四部分,將視野聚焦于我國死刑制度,簡要介紹和評價了我國學者對死刑存廢的不同觀點,以國際人權(quán)法為參照,剖析我國死刑制度存在的不足,立足我國立法與司法實踐,結(jié)合我國國情,為我國廢除死刑提出具體建議。
[Abstract]:With the development and progress of human civilization, attaching importance to the protection of human rights, especially cherishing the right to life, has increasingly become the goal pursued by the United Nations international conventions and the international community. However, the death penalty, a common ancient punishment, is controversial and questioned because of its deprivation of the right to life and its opposition to the protection of human rights. International human rights law shows the change of attitude towards death penalty from restriction to abolition in its unique form: the emphasis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the right to life in 1948 lays a legal foundation for the restriction and abolition of the death penalty; (a) Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights of 1966, which for the first time explicitly restricts the application of the death penalty in international conventions; The subsequent American Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations safeguards for the Protection of the Rights of Persons facing the death penalty imposed further restrictions on the death penalty. To some extent, the abolition of the death penalty will be raised to the content of the norms of international law. This article takes the international community's attitude towards the death penalty as the clue, takes the international human rights law to abolish the death penalty related laws as the research object, unifies our country's death penalty actual condition, proposed our country abolishes the death penalty concrete idea. This paper is divided into four main parts: the first part briefly introduces the characteristics and development process of death penalty and human rights, clarifies the opposition and conflict between them, and analyzes the positions and grounds of all sides in the debate on the existence and abolition of death penalty. To understand the changes in the attitude of international human rights law to the death penalty. The second part gives a detailed account of the initiatives and efforts of the United Nations on the issue of abolition of the death penalty, taking the relevant United Nations human rights conventions as the object of study, adopting the drafting background of the conventions, the discussion process, the final resolution, and the commentary on the relevant articles. This paper systematically interprets the important articles related to the death penalty, and evaluates its significance and influence on this basis. The third part is to systematize the provisions of regional international organizations dealing with the question of the death penalty, introducing respectively the European human rights law, the American human rights law and the statutes established by non-governmental international organizations such as Amnesty International in relation to the abolition of the death penalty. In some respects, these regulations are more advanced than United Nations documents, and their progressive significance is evaluated. In the fourth part, focusing on the death penalty system of our country, the author briefly introduces and evaluates the different viewpoints of Chinese scholars on the death penalty, taking the international human rights law as the reference, analyzes the shortcomings of the death penalty system in our country, and bases itself on the legislation and judicial practice of our country. Combined with the situation of our country, this paper puts forward some concrete suggestions for abolishing the death penalty in our country.
【學位授予單位】：鄭州大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D924.1;D997.9

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 劉仁文;死刑政策:全球視野及中國視角[J];比較法研究;2004年04期

2 邱興隆;;死刑的效益之維[J];法學家;2003年02期

3 曲新久;推動廢除死刑:刑法學者的責任[J];法學;2003年04期

4 高銘暄;蘇惠漁;于志剛;;從此踏上廢止死刑的征途——《刑法修正案(八)草案》死刑問題三人談[J];法學;2010年09期

5 陳志尚;關于人權(quán)的十個理論問題（上）[J];馬克思主義研究;1996年03期

6 胡義成;商賦人權(quán)論[J];陜西師大學報(哲學社會科學版);1991年02期

7 路易斯·亨金;王晨光;;人權(quán)概念的普遍性[J];中外法學;1993年04期

8 謝望原;;死刑有限存在論[J];中外法學;2005年05期

9 馮軍;;死刑、犯罪人與敵人[J];中外法學;2005年05期

10 邱興隆;國際人權(quán)與死刑──以國際人權(quán)法為線索的分析兼及中國的應對[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2001年02期

相關碩士學位論文 前3條

1 林亞松;國際人權(quán)法問題研究[D];大連海事大學;2003年

2 王加山;國際人權(quán)法與中國死刑廢除[D];鄭州大學;2006年

3 擰娜;關于我國限制死刑問題的思考[D];中國政法大學;2010年

，

本文編號：2021857