本文關(guān)鍵詞：國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突問(wèn)題研究，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。

        權(quán)利沖突是法律領(lǐng)域內(nèi)普遍而常見(jiàn)的現(xiàn)象，也是造成許多現(xiàn)實(shí)爭(zhēng)端的根源。國(guó)內(nèi)法理學(xué)界與民法學(xué)界對(duì)這一問(wèn)題的關(guān)注由來(lái)已久，研究成果也較為豐厚，然而這一問(wèn)題在國(guó)際法學(xué)界卻尚未引起足夠的重視。除了對(duì)國(guó)際法上個(gè)別的具體權(quán)利沖突有過(guò)論述以外，將這一問(wèn)題作為一個(gè)普遍性的問(wèn)題，進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)化研究的文章尚未見(jiàn)及。本文的研究正是為了將權(quán)利沖突問(wèn)題整體化地引入國(guó)際法學(xué)研究的視野，通過(guò)對(duì)沖突實(shí)例的列舉證明權(quán)利沖突在國(guó)際法上的現(xiàn)實(shí)性，并通過(guò)實(shí)證分析與理論梳理歸納這一現(xiàn)象在國(guó)際法上產(chǎn)生的原因，在此基礎(chǔ)上探求切實(shí)可行的解決途徑。本文的研究尚處于探索階段，所得成果也許還不能直接指導(dǎo)實(shí)踐，但所涉及問(wèn)題的重要性是不容忽視的。本文除導(dǎo)論和結(jié)論以外，主體部分共分四章。導(dǎo)論部分通過(guò)對(duì)“隆端寺案”的介紹引出本文所要研究的中心問(wèn)題，即國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突問(wèn)題，并通過(guò)簡(jiǎn)要的分析說(shuō)明這一問(wèn)題的真實(shí)性與研究意義。之后圍繞這一問(wèn)題對(duì)現(xiàn)存的相關(guān)研究做以梳理，總結(jié)現(xiàn)存的研究角度，并提出本文研究?jī)?nèi)容的獨(dú)特之處與意義。最后對(duì)論文的研究思路、結(jié)構(gòu)安排以及研究方法進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)要說(shuō)明。第一章為全文的理論基礎(chǔ)，對(duì)文章所討論的“國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突”進(jìn)行了界定。首先通過(guò)法理學(xué)的分析，將“權(quán)利”界定為一個(gè)原初概念，而將法律權(quán)利的要件概括為：權(quán)利主體、主體擁有或可要求的某種利益以及法律的承認(rèn)和保護(hù)。然后根據(jù)權(quán)利的要件與國(guó)際法的具體情況對(duì)國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利作出了限定，并對(duì)主權(quán)與人權(quán)作為國(guó)際法上比較有代表性的權(quán)利進(jìn)行了特別的說(shuō)明。在這些基礎(chǔ)上，文章進(jìn)入對(duì)權(quán)利沖突的討論。權(quán)利沖突是社會(huì)生活中真實(shí)存在的現(xiàn)象，它是不同主體所享有的被法律認(rèn)可的權(quán)利之間相互矛盾、不和諧的狀態(tài)，而國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突就是被國(guó)際法所認(rèn)可的權(quán)利之間的這種狀態(tài)。在國(guó)際法學(xué)界受到較多關(guān)注的國(guó)際法上的規(guī)則沖突與制度沖突與權(quán)利沖突既有區(qū)別又有聯(lián)系。第二章可以看作是全文論述的事實(shí)依據(jù)，選取了不同類型的權(quán)利沖突中比較有代表性的案例并進(jìn)行了簡(jiǎn)要的分析，這其中包括：體現(xiàn)宗教自由權(quán)利沖突的案件；體現(xiàn)國(guó)家管轄豁免權(quán)與基本人權(quán)之間沖突的“德國(guó)訴意大利管轄豁免案”；體現(xiàn)民族自決權(quán)與國(guó)家領(lǐng)土主權(quán)之間沖突的“科索沃獨(dú)立咨詢意見(jiàn)案”；體現(xiàn)貿(mào)易權(quán)與環(huán)境權(quán)之間沖突的“海龜/海蝦案”；體現(xiàn)健康權(quán)與知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突的三個(gè)案件。這些案例從國(guó)際法的不同領(lǐng)域揭示了國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突現(xiàn)象的普遍性，為對(duì)國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突問(wèn)題的體系性分析打下基礎(chǔ)，并提供實(shí)證。第三章分析了國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突問(wèn)題產(chǎn)生的原因。這些原因包括權(quán)利本身的原因，比如由于權(quán)利的自因性，每項(xiàng)得到國(guó)際法認(rèn)可的權(quán)利自然地?fù)碛辛苏?dāng)性，而權(quán)利邊界的模糊性使得正當(dāng)行使的權(quán)利之間也會(huì)發(fā)生侵?jǐn)_，權(quán)利的涉他性與排他性使得權(quán)利之間可能相互關(guān)涉并達(dá)到難以同時(shí)實(shí)現(xiàn)的矛盾程度。也包括有限的資源無(wú)法滿足權(quán)利主體的需求的原因，比如資源的稀缺性使所有權(quán)利要求在客觀上無(wú)法同時(shí)得到滿足，，而主體需求的多元化導(dǎo)致的交叉與重疊又往往使權(quán)利的客體就集中在同一或有限的特定資源之上。國(guó)際法體系本身的原因也是造成國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突的重要因素。國(guó)際法的“碎片化”使得各專門領(lǐng)域之間對(duì)同種權(quán)利的保護(hù)不相適應(yīng)，國(guó)際法的一般規(guī)則與這些專門領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的規(guī)則之間也沒(méi)有明確的適用關(guān)系，這些規(guī)則與制度的沖突為國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突提供了產(chǎn)生的條件。而國(guó)際法“碎片化”的多種成因又直接或間接地導(dǎo)致了權(quán)利的沖突。比如國(guó)際法所固有的中央立法與司法機(jī)構(gòu)的缺失、國(guó)內(nèi)利益集團(tuán)的博弈對(duì)國(guó)家決策的影響、國(guó)際法淵源的復(fù)雜與難以確定等。國(guó)際法的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)中，“共存國(guó)際法”向“合作國(guó)際法”甚至是“人權(quán)國(guó)際法”的轉(zhuǎn)變使得許多新的國(guó)際法律部門得以快速地成長(zhǎng)，許多權(quán)利受到保護(hù)的程度相對(duì)從前得到了大幅的提高，這就向一些傳統(tǒng)上受到國(guó)際法重視的權(quán)利提出了挑戰(zhàn)；隨著強(qiáng)行法規(guī)則的產(chǎn)生與“對(duì)一切義務(wù)”的出現(xiàn)等新的發(fā)展，國(guó)際法上逐漸出現(xiàn)了一定的等級(jí)價(jià)值，而當(dāng)這些等級(jí)價(jià)值投射到具體的權(quán)利之中，與價(jià)值等級(jí)不相適應(yīng)的權(quán)利保護(hù)程度就導(dǎo)致了沖突的產(chǎn)生；國(guó)際司法機(jī)構(gòu)在擴(kuò)散的同時(shí)卻缺乏一定的協(xié)調(diào)與統(tǒng)一，這更使得權(quán)利具有了不確定性，從而加劇了沖突。第四章分析了解決國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突的基本理念與可能的途徑。國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突雖然由于一些客觀情況而無(wú)法得到徹底的、普遍性的解決，但仍可能在個(gè)案上解決和在普遍意義上得以緩解�！叭吮局髁x”與“和諧世界”代表了國(guó)際法目前的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)與對(duì)沖突解決的最高價(jià)值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，可以將其作為解決國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突的基本理念，具體的解決方法都應(yīng)秉承這樣的理念而為�！傲⒎ā蓖緩街τ跈�(quán)利邊界的清晰化與對(duì)國(guó)際法律制度的調(diào)整，試圖在邏輯層面緩解權(quán)利沖突。司法途徑針對(duì)權(quán)利沖突的個(gè)案，通過(guò)對(duì)規(guī)則的解釋與法官自由裁量的方式尋求對(duì)沖突的解決。在這些法律方式之中，都離不開(kāi)對(duì)價(jià)值與利益的衡量，衡量的結(jié)果一方面有利于確定權(quán)利的位階，使高位階的權(quán)利優(yōu)先于低位階的權(quán)利得到保護(hù)；另一方面在無(wú)法區(qū)分位階的權(quán)利之間可以根據(jù)利益平衡、保護(hù)弱者等原則來(lái)求得沖突的合理解決。法律之外的方法在解決國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突上也有不少的用武之地。比如協(xié)商的方式可以有針對(duì)性地考慮到相關(guān)權(quán)利的歷史與現(xiàn)實(shí)情況，并對(duì)沖突解決可能的結(jié)果有比較明確的認(rèn)識(shí)，當(dāng)事方之間自愿的安排更容易得到落實(shí)。有些涉及當(dāng)事方重大利益的權(quán)利沖突，往往在司法裁判之后仍需要當(dāng)事方的協(xié)商以確定權(quán)利的最終安排。另外，我們?nèi)钥梢云诖祟惪萍嫉倪M(jìn)步能夠使社會(huì)可供資源相對(duì)地增加，從而緩解資源的稀缺性帶來(lái)的緊張狀態(tài)。當(dāng)然，由于權(quán)利本身的特性以及國(guó)際法的特殊性質(zhì)，對(duì)于什么是理想的沖突解決方法很難判斷，只能在實(shí)際中依具體情況去分析。

    Conflict of rights is common in law, and it is the cause of many disputes inreality. Scholars of jurisprudence and civil law have discussed a lot about this issue,and the research achievements are abundant. But the importance of this issue has notbeen recognized in international law as such. Except for several discussions on somespecific conflict of rights, there is no systematic research on this issue ininternational law as far as I could find. This dissertation is to introduce the conflictof rights as a general issue into the horizon of international legal research. Throughthe presentation of cases concerning the conflict of rights, the reality of the problemis proved. Feasible and effective solutions can be concluded based on empiricalanalysis and theory study. The research in this dissertation is still on an exploratorystage, and the outcome may not be ready for practical guidance, but the importanceof the topic should not be neglected.There are four chapters in this dissertation besides the introduction and theconclusion.In the introduction, with the summary of the Case Concerning the Temple ofPreah Vihear, the key issue is introduced as the conflict of rights in international law.Current theories and prospect relevant to this topic are examined, based on which thespecial point and the significance of this research are presented. The framework, thestructure arrangement and the research method are also introduced in this part.The first chapter elaborates the basic theory of the topic of this dissertation. Itdefines the conflict of rights in international law through the following process.Firstly, jurisprudence analysis is presented to figure out what “right” means. Thenthe elements of legal rights are concluded as subject of a right, some interest that are owned or may be requested by the subject and the recognition and protection of law.Then according to these elements, rights in international law are defined. As thetypical and special rights on this issue, sovereignty and human rights are elaborated.As follows, it discusses the theory about conflict of rights, and conflict of norms andinstitutions are also examined as relevant issues. Conflict of rights is real in sociallife, and in international law, it is defined as an inconsistent and disharmonious statebetween different subjects’ rights that are recognized in international law.The second chapter can be viewed as the factual basis of the dissertation.Different kinds of rights in conflict are selected out and analyzed to further prove thephenomenon. The cases represent the conflict between the rights of religiousfreedom, the conflict between the right of state immunity and fundamental humanrights, the conflict between the right of self-determination and the right of sovereignintegrity, the conflict between trading rights and environmental rights and theconflict between right to health and property rights. These cases suggest theuniversality of the conflict of rights in international law, and provide evidence for thesystematic analysis.Chapter Three discusses the causes of the conflict of rights in international law.The intrinsic features of rights come first. Every right recognized by internationallaw gets its own legitimacy for the self-causing attribute, and a vague boundarymakes it possible for a conflict between the legitimate rights. The other-involvingattribute and the exclusivity of rights drive the interference to an inconsistent extent.Facing the diversity and infinity of subjects’ demands, the resources our societycould provide are limited. And the systematic problems of international law itselfalso contribute to the generation of conflicts. The fragmentation of international lawcauses the different and inconsistent protection of a right among the differentdepartments of international law, and there is no explicit relationship between therules in general and the specific rules of international law. The conflict between rules and those between departments provide a condition for the emergence of conflict ofrights in international law. And the causes of fragmentation themselves lead to theconflict of rights directly or indirectly. For example, the missing of centrallegislature and judiciary, the influence of competing domestic interest groups onstates’ policy-making and the complexity and uncertainty of the sources ofinternational law are all playing a part. As a tendency, international law has grownfrom coexistence to cooperation and even to human rights oriented. Thistransformation booms many new departments, which enhance the protection of somerights, and in meanwhile, some traditionally highlighted rights are facing a challenge.With the emergence of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes, a hierarchy of valueshas gradually emerged in international law. When the protection of the rights can notmatch with the importance of the value they represent, conflict of rights may comeinto being. Furthermore, the proliferation of the international judiciary without duecoherence gives more uncertainty to the rights, which aggravates the conflict ofrights.The last chapter talks about how to solve this problem at the topic. Providedsome objective circumstances, conflict of rights in international law may not besolved completely and universally, but an individual resolution and a general reliefmay also help. Humanism and the idea of the harmonious world represent thedeveloping tendency and the highest value standard of the conflict resolution ininternational law. They must be borne in mind as the fundamental philosophy whensolving the conflict problems. The legislation approach alleviates the conflictlogically mainly in two ways: clarifying limits of rights and adjusting internationallegal regimes. The judicial approach aims at individual cases. The interpretation ofthe rules and the discretion of the judges are usually used in conflict solving injudicial process. Within these legal approaches, the measuring of values and interestsis always on board. In one hand, this measurement may recognize a hierarchy of rights, which can give priority to the right of higher grade in legislation and judicialprocess; in the other hand, when no hierarchy can be told, conflicts may also besolved by balancing interest and concerning for the underprivileged groups. Besidesthe legal approaches, negotiation and other non-legal methods may also be used. Toillustrate, negotiation can take the historical and current situation into consideration,and may lead to a result that all disputing parties are more willing to accept. Not tomention, some vital interests relating conflict can only be settled by the parties evenafter a judicial judgment. What’s more, technological developments can also becounted on to provide more resources or make more efficient use of the currentresources to ease up the tense that the limited resources brought in. However, takingthe complexity of conflicts and the inherent features of international law in account,which method is the best for the resolution of conflict of rights in international lawcan not be decided easily, and a case by case analysis may still be applied.

國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突問(wèn)題研究

摘要4-7Abstract7-10導(dǎo)論14-27    一、 問(wèn)題的提出——從“隆端寺案”透視國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突的真實(shí)存在14-18    二、 文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)18-25    三、 研究思路、結(jié)構(gòu)安排和研究方法25-27第一章 國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突的界定27-52    第一節(jié) 國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利27-37        一、 權(quán)利的基本理論27-32        二、 國(guó)際法上權(quán)利的確定32-37    第二節(jié) 國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突37-52        一、 權(quán)利沖突問(wèn)題37-42        二、 國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突42-52第二章 國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突的方式52-84    第一節(jié) 國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突的基本類型52-53    第二節(jié) 國(guó)際法上相同類型權(quán)利的沖突實(shí)例53-60        一、 國(guó)家主權(quán)權(quán)利之間的沖突53-54        二、 個(gè)人基本人權(quán)之間的沖突——宗教自由權(quán)利沖突案54-60    第三節(jié) 國(guó)際法上不同類型權(quán)利的沖突實(shí)例60-84        一、 國(guó)家管轄豁免權(quán)與基本人權(quán)之間的沖突——德國(guó)訴意大利管轄豁免案60-65        二、 民族自決權(quán)與國(guó)家領(lǐng)土主權(quán)之間的沖突——科索沃獨(dú)立咨詢意見(jiàn)案65-72        三、 貿(mào)易權(quán)與環(huán)境權(quán)之間的沖突——美國(guó)禁止進(jìn)口蝦及蝦制品案72-75        四、 知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)與健康權(quán)之間的沖突75-84第三章 國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突的成因84-116    第一節(jié) 權(quán)利本身的原因84-93        一、 權(quán)利邊界的模糊性84-90        二、 權(quán)利屬性的原因90-93    第二節(jié) 有限的資源無(wú)法滿足主體的需求93-100        一、 資源的稀缺性93-96        二、 主體需求的交叉與重疊96-100    第三節(jié) 國(guó)際法體系的原因100-116        一、 從體系層面看待國(guó)際法101-103        二、 國(guó)際法體系“碎片化”的特點(diǎn)與權(quán)利沖突的產(chǎn)生103-106        三、 國(guó)際法體系現(xiàn)狀的成因?qū)?quán)利沖突產(chǎn)生的影響106-116第四章 國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突的解決116-154    第一節(jié) 國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突解決的必要性與可能性116-117    第二節(jié) 解決國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突的基本理念117-122        一、 國(guó)際法的“人本主義”117-121        二、 “和諧世界”作為解決權(quán)利沖突的理念121-122    第三節(jié) 解決國(guó)際法上權(quán)利沖突可能的途徑122-154        一、 法律途徑124-149        二、 非法律途徑149-154結(jié)論154-158參考文獻(xiàn)158-167作者簡(jiǎn)介及攻讀博士學(xué)位期間科研成果167-168后記168-169

  本文關(guān)鍵詞：國(guó)際法上的權(quán)利沖突問(wèn)題研究，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。