本文選題：適足食物權(quán) + 可訴性�。� 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：在人權(quán)觀念深入人心的當(dāng)下,適足食物權(quán)得到了越來(lái)越多的關(guān)注,然而當(dāng)前法律等制度跟不上適足食物權(quán)發(fā)展的步伐,使得適足食物權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)得不到有效保障。針對(duì)這一困境,文章以適足食物權(quán)的概念、內(nèi)容和性質(zhì)為切入點(diǎn),對(duì)適足食物權(quán)的相關(guān)理論進(jìn)行了梳理,認(rèn)為適足食物權(quán)是一項(xiàng)包含食物安全、適度營(yíng)養(yǎng)權(quán)和食物文化權(quán)的基本人權(quán)。接著文章從可訴性入手,介紹了狹義的可訴性和廣義的可訴性,論證了目前人權(quán)司法保障需采用廣義的觀點(diǎn),從而為全文的寫(xiě)作奠定了基礎(chǔ)。然后文章從適足食物權(quán)可訴性的爭(zhēng)議出發(fā),介紹了適足食物權(quán)可訴性否定論者的觀點(diǎn)和文章對(duì)否定論的反駁。否定論者認(rèn)為適足食物權(quán)是項(xiàng)積極權(quán)利、高成本權(quán)利、模糊性權(quán)利,其不具備可訴性的條件,強(qiáng)行進(jìn)行訴訟會(huì)影響權(quán)力分立。針對(duì)否定論者的觀點(diǎn),文章對(duì)權(quán)利二分法、權(quán)利成本、權(quán)利模糊性、影響權(quán)力分立等觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了批判,對(duì)否定論者的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了辯駁,論證了適足食物權(quán)具有可訴性。接著文章從國(guó)際層面的報(bào)告機(jī)制、申訴機(jī)制等準(zhǔn)司法救濟(jì),以及國(guó)家層面的直接司法救濟(jì)、間接司法救濟(jì)等方面介紹了適足食物權(quán)可訴性的司法實(shí)踐,證明了適足食物權(quán)可訴性具有現(xiàn)實(shí)可能性。最后,文章從中國(guó)國(guó)情出發(fā),指出了適足食物權(quán)可訴性在我國(guó)的困境,并以義務(wù)層次理論為依據(jù),從尊重義務(wù)具有完全可訴性、保護(hù)義務(wù)具有部分可訴性、實(shí)現(xiàn)義務(wù)具有有限可訴性三個(gè)方面探討了我國(guó)適足食物權(quán)可訴性的可能性,從而為實(shí)現(xiàn)適足食物權(quán)可訴性提供些許制度層面的建議,如完善行政訴訟制度、完善公益訴訟制度等。
[Abstract]:At present, the right to adequate food has received more and more attention. However, the current legal system can not keep up with the pace of the development of the right to adequate food, making the realization of the right to adequate food can not be effectively guaranteed. In view of this dilemma, the article combs the relevant theories of the right to adequate food from the point of view of the concept, content and nature of the right to adequate food, and holds that the right to adequate food is an inclusive right to food security. The basic human rights of the right to moderate nutrition and the right to food and culture. Then the article starts with the litigability, introduces the narrow sense of litigability and the broad sense of litigability, and proves that the judicial guarantee of human rights needs to adopt the broad view at present, thus laying a foundation for the writing of the full text. Then, from the controversy of the right to adequate food, the author introduces the viewpoint of the right to adequate food and the refutation of the theory of negation. The negative theorists hold that the right to adequate food is a positive right, a high cost right and a vague right, which does not have the conditions of actionable, and the forced action will affect the separation of powers. In this paper, the author criticizes the dichotomy of rights, the cost of rights, the vagueness of rights and the influence of separation of powers, and argues against the views of negators, and proves that the right to adequate food is actionable. Then the article introduces the judicial practice of the right to adequate food from the aspects of international reporting mechanism, complaint mechanism and quasi-judicial relief, as well as direct judicial relief and indirect judicial relief at the national level. It is proved that the justiciability of the right to adequate food has realistic possibility. Finally, according to the situation of China, the article points out the plight of the right to adequate food in our country, and based on the theory of obligation level, the obligation of respect is completely actionable, and the obligation of protection is partly actionable. This paper discusses the possibility of the justiciability of the right to adequate food in China from three aspects of the limited actionable nature of the obligation of realization, thus providing some institutional suggestions for the realization of the justiciability of the right to adequate food, such as perfecting the administrative litigation system. Improve the public interest litigation system and so on.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫娟娟;;農(nóng)產(chǎn)品價(jià)值增值的路徑和制度保障——兼論糧食安全、食品安全、食品質(zhì)量的關(guān)聯(lián)性[J];華南農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年01期

2 管穎;;充足食物權(quán)及在我國(guó)的實(shí)現(xiàn)狀況研究[J];知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì);2015年22期

3 彭玉;;聯(lián)合國(guó)關(guān)于食物權(quán)之規(guī)定及態(tài)度分析[J];人權(quán);2015年03期

4 羅鑫;;食物權(quán)的憲法化和法律保護(hù)[J];理論與改革;2015年01期

5 秦前紅;涂云新;;經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)、文化權(quán)利的可司法性研究——從比較憲法的視角介入[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2012年04期

6 寧立標(biāo);;印度最高法院對(duì)食物權(quán)的司法保障及對(duì)中國(guó)的啟示——PUCL案述評(píng)[J];求索;2011年10期

7 寧立標(biāo);段紹懷;;食物權(quán)的歷史展開(kāi)[J];貴州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年04期

8 寧立標(biāo);羅開(kāi)卷;;論食物權(quán)的司法保障[J];法商研究;2011年03期

9 林沈節(jié);;食物權(quán)及其解釋[J];太平洋學(xué)報(bào);2009年09期

10 鄭智航;;南非食物權(quán)定性的論爭(zhēng)及其啟示[J];法商研究;2009年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 寧立標(biāo);適足食物權(quán)及其法律保障研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前9條

1 梁鵬;我國(guó)食物權(quán)及其保護(hù)問(wèn)題研究[D];湖南工業(yè)大學(xué);2015年

2 閆琰;國(guó)際人權(quán)法視角下食物權(quán)研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2014年

3 吳玉姣;論我國(guó)公民食物權(quán)的法律保護(hù)[D];東北大學(xué);2013年

4 秦晏兵;論食物權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)及法律救濟(jì)[D];華中科技大學(xué);2012年

5 黃瑤;我國(guó)食品安全立法對(duì)食物權(quán)的保護(hù)[D];湖南大學(xué);2012年

6 鄭宏麗;論食物權(quán)[D];湘潭大學(xué);2012年

7 張寶元;論食物權(quán)的法律保護(hù)[D];蘇州大學(xué);2008年

8 張玉霞;論食物權(quán)[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

9 王序東;論食物權(quán)[D];吉林大學(xué);2005年

，

本文編號(hào)：1984053