本文關(guān)鍵詞：人權(quán)司法化問題研究　出處：《武漢大學(xué)》2016年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 人權(quán) 司法 保障 人權(quán)現(xiàn)實化 人權(quán)司法化

【摘要】：本文旨在探討如下問題,即在我國社會主義法治建設(shè)重心已經(jīng)實現(xiàn)從強(qiáng)調(diào)立法完善向更加注重法律實施轉(zhuǎn)移的時代背景下,積極探索司法主導(dǎo)法定人權(quán)現(xiàn)實化的方法與途徑,以期通過增強(qiáng)司法在人權(quán)法治保障方面的實效性以克服當(dāng)前司法實踐偏重于訴訟權(quán)利保障的潛在不足,一方面為我國未來的人權(quán)司法保障制度的健全與完善提供一種可能的理論參考與模式選擇,另一方面也為本世紀(jì)中葉“中國夢”實現(xiàn)之際我國人權(quán)現(xiàn)實化目標(biāo)的最大化實現(xiàn)提供一種更加周延的人權(quán)法治保障路徑。在考察“人權(quán)司法保障”不同語義及其價值屬性基礎(chǔ)上,本文嘗試性地提出了“人權(quán)司法化”的理論命題并就其制度性實踐機(jī)制等相關(guān)問題進(jìn)行了積極探索�！叭藱�(quán)司法化”,或稱“通過司法的人權(quán)保障”,是指當(dāng)任何公民的任何法定人權(quán)在遭受不法侵害且該利益受損人有獲得公權(quán)力救濟(jì)的現(xiàn)實訴求時,那么就能夠通過直接訴諸司法的方式獲得全面、及時、有效救濟(jì)。“人權(quán)司法化”主張司法在人權(quán)保障問題上應(yīng)當(dāng)秉持“當(dāng)為性”與“完整性”立場,強(qiáng)調(diào)司法在人權(quán)法律化基礎(chǔ)上實現(xiàn)對法定人權(quán)訴求的最終確認(rèn)與積極落實,強(qiáng)調(diào)司法之于人權(quán)現(xiàn)實化的主導(dǎo)地位。其特點是蘊(yùn)含邏輯必然性,彰顯現(xiàn)實必要性,體現(xiàn)社會實踐性,強(qiáng)調(diào)實施漸進(jìn)性。本文主要是從“理論可能性”與“現(xiàn)實必要性”兩個角度對“人權(quán)司法化”進(jìn)行了邏輯證成。一是通過回溯并重新考察“人權(quán)的實質(zhì)平等性”、“有權(quán)利必有救濟(jì)的法治原則”、“人權(quán)可訴性理論”以及“司法的性質(zhì)理論”等基礎(chǔ)法學(xué)原理的基本內(nèi)涵及其現(xiàn)實訴求探討了“人權(quán)司法化”何以可能的問題：首先,“每個人享有平等關(guān)心和尊重的權(quán)利”(德沃金)是“人權(quán)司法化”的法哲學(xué)依據(jù),揭示了人權(quán)的實質(zhì)平等屬性,強(qiáng)調(diào)了在尊重和保障人權(quán)問題上的絕對性和無條件性。其次,“有權(quán)利必有救濟(jì)”的法治原則是“人權(quán)司法化”存在的法治性前提,實現(xiàn)了具體權(quán)利訴求與法治救濟(jì)手段(司法自然在列)的有效溝通,為“平等關(guān)心與尊重的權(quán)利”的進(jìn)一步現(xiàn)實化提供了制度性保障。再次,人權(quán)可訴性是“人權(quán)現(xiàn)實化”的直接法理依據(jù),實際是指“法定人權(quán)的可訴性”,在本質(zhì)上是人權(quán)可主張性與法律可訴性的有機(jī)結(jié)合,強(qiáng)調(diào)公權(quán)力(司法權(quán))之于人權(quán)訴求進(jìn)行救濟(jì)的“當(dāng)為性”與“完整性”特征。最后,司法權(quán)的性質(zhì)理論是對“人權(quán)現(xiàn)實化”的一種補(bǔ)充性證明,強(qiáng)調(diào)近代司法自其產(chǎn)生之日起即擔(dān)負(fù)著保障個體權(quán)利實現(xiàn)的神圣歷史使命,以人權(quán)為終極目的與現(xiàn)實追求。除此之外,本文還從人權(quán)現(xiàn)實化歷程,司法現(xiàn)代化發(fā)展以及法治中國建設(shè)等現(xiàn)實角度探討了“人權(quán)司法化”的現(xiàn)實必要性問題�！叭藱�(quán)司法化”的價值意義主要體現(xiàn)在理論與實踐兩個基本層面。一是從理論層面看,“人權(quán)司法化”是現(xiàn)代司法區(qū)別傳統(tǒng)司法的關(guān)鍵要素,是近代司法權(quán)獨(dú)立于行政權(quán)的邏輯前提,是法治社會人權(quán)現(xiàn)實化路徑的理性回歸。二是從實踐層面看,“人權(quán)司法化”有利于健全完善我國當(dāng)前的人權(quán)司法保障機(jī)制,有利于積極引導(dǎo)我國未來人權(quán)事業(yè)的繁榮發(fā)展�！叭藱�(quán)司法化”的制度性實踐機(jī)制是本文研究的最終落腳點,提出了通過人權(quán)法院制度保障法定人權(quán)現(xiàn)實化的理論構(gòu)想。人權(quán)法院是專門處理人權(quán)爭議糾紛的特殊司法機(jī)關(guān)。一是機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置上,主要考慮兩種情形：其一,其外部層級可考慮設(shè)置于跨省一級,具體可根據(jù)不同地區(qū)的相似地域特征、歷史文化傳統(tǒng)以及宗教信仰等因素確定所跨省域范圍；其二,其內(nèi)部部門可考慮統(tǒng)籌設(shè)立少數(shù)群體權(quán)利法庭、環(huán)保法庭等主要專門權(quán)利法庭,以實現(xiàn)司法資源配置的統(tǒng)籌化與集約化。二是人員組成上,主張兼顧人權(quán)案件審理的實踐性、政治性、理論性以及社會性四大要素的平衡,采取“根據(jù)不同人員組成的性質(zhì)確定具體來源”的策略,力避純粹司法主義傾向。三是審理案件范圍上,人權(quán)法院受理的案件應(yīng)當(dāng)僅限于尚未被具體部門法明確細(xì)化的基本權(quán)利爭議或者通過普通司法程序?qū)徖肀旧泶嬖诤侠硇再|(zhì)疑的人權(quán)案件。此外,為保障法定人權(quán)現(xiàn)實化水平,對于及涉及基本人權(quán)的冤假錯案的再審理亦應(yīng)由該人權(quán)法院負(fù)責(zé)審理。四是審級效力上,人權(quán)法院實行二審終審制,其中二審程序由最高人民法院負(fù)責(zé)審理；對于其中可能涉及的憲法性問題爭議,則由最高法院提請全國人大常委會作出憲法解釋或說明,最高法院據(jù)此作出最終判決。
[Abstract]:This paper aims to explore the following issues, namely in the center of China's socialist construction of rule of law has been achieved from the emphasis on the perfection of legislation to pay more attention to the implementation of the law transfer under the background of the times, actively explore ways and means of legal human rights reality judicial led, in order to enhance the effectiveness of justice in the protection of human rights and the rule of law to overcome potential disadvantages of current judicial practice the emphasis on the protection of procedural rights, on the one hand, for the future of our judicial human rights guarantee system's perfect and provide a theoretical reference and model choice, maximize the other hand for the middle of this century "Chinese dream" on the occasion of human rights in our country to realize the goal of reality provides a more comprehensive protection of human rights and the rule of law. Based on the investigation of the different semantic and value attributes of "human rights judicial guarantee", this article tentatively puts forward the theoretical proposition of "human rights judicature" and makes some active exploration on its institutional practice mechanism and other related issues. "Judicial" or "human rights, through the protection of human rights" refers to justice, when any citizen in any legal human rights being infringed and the victim has practical demands to be the remedy of public power, so we can obtain a comprehensive, timely and effective relief through direct judicial way. "Judicial" human rights advocates justice should uphold the principle of "when" and "complete" position in the protection of human rights issues, emphasizing judicial law on human rights is implemented based on the final confirmation of legal human rights and actively implement, emphasize the judicial reality of human rights in a leading position. Its characteristic is logical inevitability, manifests the necessity of reality, embodies social practice and emphasizes the implementation of gradualness. This article is mainly from the "theoretical possibility" and "the reality necessity" two angles to "the human rights judicature" has carried on the logical evidence. One is by going back and re examines the "human rights equality", "rights must be protected by the principle of rule of law" and "human rights litigation theory" and "justice theory" and other basic legal principle basic connotation and realistic demands on "human rights judicial" the possibility of the problem: first of all, "everyone enjoys equal concern and respect for the rights" (Dworkin) "is the basis of legal philosophy of justice of human rights", reveals the essence of equal property rights, emphasizes the respect and protection of human rights on the issue of absolute and unconditional. Secondly, the principle of the rule of law is right there is relief "is the" rule of law of the premise of the existence of judicial "human rights, the realization of the rights and the rule of law (judicial remedies in natural column) to communicate effectively, further into the reality of equal concern and respect" right "has provided the guarantee of the system. Again, human rights litigation is "direct legal basis for human rights reality", refers to "legal human rights litigation", in essence is the human rights advocates and law can be the organic combination of litigation, emphasize the public power (Si Faquan) to the human rights relief "as" with "integrity" feature. Lastly, the theory of the nature of judicial power is a supplementary proof of the "realities of human rights". It emphasizes that the modern judiciary is responsible for protecting the realization of individual rights from the date of its emergence, and taking human rights as the ultimate goal and realistic pursuit. Besides, this paper also discusses the necessity of "human rights judicature" from the realities of human rights, the development of judicial modernization and the construction of rule of law in China. The value meaning of "human rights judicature" is mainly embodied in the two basic aspects of theory and practice. First, from a theoretical perspective, "human rights judicature" is the key element of modern judicature to distinguish traditional judicature. It is the logical premise of the independence of Modern Judicature from the executive power, and the rational return of the path of human rights realities in the rule of law society. Two, from a practical perspective, "human rights judicature" is conducive to improving and perfecting our current judicial protection mechanism for human rights, and is conducive to actively guiding the prosperity and development of human rights in the future. The institutional practice mechanism of "human rights judicature" is the ultimate goal of this paper, and a theoretical conception is put forward to guarantee the realization of statutory human rights through the court of human rights system. The human rights court is a special judicial organ specializing in dealing with disputes over human rights. One is the setting, mainly consider two situations: first, the external level may consider setting in provincial level, the provincial domain specific scope according to different regions of similar geographical features, historical and cultural traditions and religious beliefs and other factors; secondly, the internal departments may consider the court, the court of environmental protection of minority rights the main special rights court set up to achieve the overall co-ordination, and intensive allocation of judicial resources. The two is composed of personnel, both advocate the practice of human rights cases, theory of political, social and balance the four elements to "determine the specific source of staff according to the nature of different strategies, in order to avoid the tendency of pure judicial. Three, in the scope of trial cases, the cases accepted by the court of human rights should be limited to the basic rights disputes that have not yet been clearly defined by specific sector laws or through ordinary judicial procedures to try to hear human rights cases that have their own reasonable doubts. In addition, in order to ensure the realistic level of the legal human rights, the retrial of the wrongful and false cases involving the basic human rights should also be tried by the human rights court. Four is the effect on the trial level court of human rights, implementation of instance system, the procedure of second instance by the Supreme People's court is responsible for hearing; the constitution may involve the disputes by the Supreme Court of the NPC Standing Committee made a constitutional interpretation or explanation, according to the Supreme Court made a final ruling.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D921;D926
，

本文編號：1346010