【摘要】：自歐洲文明形成伊始,酷刑現(xiàn)象即隨之濫觴,并且在歐洲長達(dá)數(shù)千年的歷史中一直合理合法地存在著,從古希臘、古羅馬時期到黑暗的中世紀(jì),直至思想啟蒙運(yùn)動徹底動搖了其正當(dāng)性基礎(chǔ)。第二次世界大戰(zhàn)之后,免受酷刑權(quán)在世界范圍內(nèi)最終得以定型。秉承《世界人權(quán)宣言》的人權(quán)保護(hù)理念精髓,《歐洲人權(quán)公約》第3條規(guī)定了免受酷刑和不人道的以及有損人格的待遇或懲罰的權(quán)利,并且在歐洲委員會層面建立起免受酷刑權(quán)的司法保護(hù)機(jī)制,將這一項權(quán)利在歐洲的區(qū)域保護(hù)付諸實踐。 歐洲層面免受酷刑權(quán)的司法保護(hù),其基本模式為“當(dāng)事人申訴→人權(quán)法院判決→涉案締約國執(zhí)行判決→部長委員會監(jiān)督判決執(zhí)行→免受酷刑權(quán)得到救濟(jì)”的事后救濟(jì)。歐洲人權(quán)法院和部長委員會是目前歐洲免受酷刑權(quán)司法保護(hù)的核心機(jī)構(gòu)。歐洲人權(quán)法院通過諸多判例不斷深化著免受酷刑權(quán)保護(hù)的深度和廣度,并對相關(guān)問題進(jìn)行法理詮釋,這些問題包括酷刑、不人道的和有損人格的待遇或懲罰的內(nèi)在界限、外在表現(xiàn)形式以及三者的關(guān)系等。根據(jù)歐洲人權(quán)法院的理解,在免受酷刑權(quán)的保護(hù)方面,《歐洲人權(quán)公約》的締約國除了負(fù)有積極的保護(hù)義務(wù)之外,對于被訴案件還負(fù)有調(diào)查和解釋義務(wù)。 司法保護(hù)與非司法保護(hù)并行的雙軌保護(hù)機(jī)制是歐洲免受酷刑權(quán)保護(hù)機(jī)制區(qū)別于他項人權(quán)區(qū)域保護(hù)機(jī)制的重要特征之一,經(jīng)過幾十年的磨合,二者的配合日臻默契。此外,歐洲人權(quán)法院對免受酷刑權(quán)超前與獨到的司法詮釋,也贏得了世界范圍的贊譽(yù)。 然而,在全球反恐的背景下,“定時炸彈困境”導(dǎo)致了“骯臟之手”理論不斷挑戰(zhàn)對免受酷刑權(quán)的絕對保護(hù),部分態(tài)度強(qiáng)硬的締約國對部長委員會也采取了消極不合作的態(tài)度。此外,歐洲人權(quán)法院對免受酷刑權(quán)過于寬泛的司法解釋也導(dǎo)致了質(zhì)疑之聲的產(chǎn)生。對人的尊重和人權(quán)理念的發(fā)展是免受酷刑權(quán)司法保護(hù)不斷前行的力量源泉和價值坐標(biāo)。歐洲區(qū)域的保護(hù)經(jīng)驗,為全世界范圍內(nèi)免受酷刑權(quán)的司法保護(hù)樹立了可供參考的制度標(biāo)桿。
[Abstract]:From the beginning of the European civilization, the phenomenon of torture began, and it has existed legitimately throughout the history of Europe for thousands of years, from ancient Greece to ancient Rome to the dark Middle Ages. Until the ideological Enlightenment completely shaken its legitimate foundation. After World War II, the right to freedom from torture was finalized worldwide. Guided by the essence of the human rights protection philosophy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for the right to be free from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, A judicial protection mechanism for the right to freedom from torture was established at the level of the Council of Europe, putting this right into practice in the regional protection of Europe. In Europe, the basic mode of judicial protection of the right to freedom from torture is the ex post relief of the right of the parties to appeal against torture and the right of the State party to enforce the judgment in case of execution of the judgment by the Committee of Ministers of the State Party involved in the case. The European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers are currently the core institutions for the judicial protection of the right to freedom from torture in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights, through numerous jurisprudence, has deepened the depth and breadth of the protection against torture and has provided legal interpretations of related issues, including the inherent limits of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, External forms of expression and the relationship between the three. According to the understanding of the European Court of Human Rights, States parties to the European Convention on Human Rights have an obligation to investigate and explain alleged cases, in addition to the positive obligation to protect them, with regard to the protection against torture. The two-track protection mechanism of judicial protection and non-judicial protection is one of the important characteristics of the protection mechanism of the right to freedom from torture in Europe, which is different from the regional protection mechanism of other human rights. After several decades of running in and out, the cooperation between the two is becoming more and more tacit. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights has won worldwide praise for its advanced and unique judicial interpretation of the right to be free from torture. However, in the context of global counter-terrorism, the "time bomb dilemma" has led to the theory of "dirty hands" constantly challenging the absolute protection of the right to freedom from torture, and some hard-line States parties have also taken a passive and uncooperative attitude towards the Ministerial Committee. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights's judicial interpretation of the right to freedom from torture has led to voices of challenge. The development of the concept of respect for human beings and human rights is the source of strength and value coordinate for the judicial protection against torture. The protection experience of the European region has set a system benchmark for the judicial protection of the right to freedom from torture worldwide.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D998.2;D997.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙迅;;社會契約視域下國家責(zé)任的理論論證[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年03期

2 劉昂;薛振環(huán);;酷刑的界定[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年02期

3 吳慧;《歐洲人權(quán)公約》實施機(jī)制的發(fā)展[J];國際關(guān)系學(xué)院學(xué)報;2001年01期

4 周子琦;劉寧寧;;試論部長委員會對歐洲人權(quán)法院判決執(zhí)行的監(jiān)督[J];河北法學(xué);2009年01期

5 楊成銘;論歐洲理事會的人權(quán)保護(hù)制度對建立和完善國際人權(quán)保護(hù)制度的影響[J];時代法學(xué);2005年01期

6 李步云,王修經(jīng);人權(quán)國際保護(hù)與國家主權(quán)[J];法學(xué)研究;1995年04期

7 張翔;基本權(quán)利的雙重性質(zhì)[J];法學(xué)研究;2005年03期

8 周子琦;劉寧寧;;歐洲人權(quán)法院述評[J];理論界;2009年02期

9 陳衛(wèi)東;劉計劃;程雷;;歐洲三國反酷刑的經(jīng)驗及啟示[J];人民檢察;2007年15期

10 王秀梅;關(guān)于酷刑罪的思考[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2001年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 李卓婭;歐洲人權(quán)法及其理論思考[D];西南政法大學(xué);2005年

2 李學(xué)勤;免受酷刑權(quán)的國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)探析[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：2363509