期刊文献+

实现自由与秩序的良性平衡——对流浪乞讨问题的宪法学分析 被引量:27

Striking a Proper Balance between Freedom and Order
原文传递
导出
摘要 收容遣送制度的废止和救助管理办法的建立并没有完全解决许多城市所面临的流浪乞讨问题,因而当今中国各大城市仍然需要在宪法和法律规定的范围内处理这一问题。本文从美国对相关问题的宪政经验出发,探讨地方立法所必须遵循的宪法学原则。和美国类似,中国宪法虽然没有提到乞讨或露宿的权利,但也规定了和这类问题相关的公民基本权利。结合中国和美国的相关宪政经验,本文认为政府并不是绝对不可对乞讨和露宿行为进行限制,而是必须保证这些限制符合宪法的基本要求。第一,它们所针对的是行为,而不是流浪者或乞丐身份。第二,政府只有在具备合法的公共利益的情况下才能限制这些行为。第三,有关规定不得为执法人员提供不受控制的自由裁量权。最后,要实现自由与秩序的平衡,必须建立独立的宪法解释机构,通过司法过程界定公民权利与地方权力的边界。 Neither the rescission of the compulsory detainment and relocation system nor the establishment of the voluntary assistance institution fully resolve the problems of beggars and vagabonds that confront major Chinese cities today. Drawing lessons from the American experience in dealing with the homeless problems, this article explores the constitutional principles with which the relevant local legislations must comply in China. Although the Chinese Constitution doesnot specifically mention the rights of beggars and vagabonds, it does provide several relevant basic rights for citizens in general. This article suggests that the government is not altogether prohibited from restricting begging and camping in public places, but it must ensure its restrictions comply with the following basic constitutional requirements. First, they can aim only at conducts and not at status of being a beggar or vagabond. Second, the government can restrict certain conducts only for the purpose of achieving legitimate public interest. Third, relevant legislations may not be so vague as to provide the executive officials with unlimited discretion. Finally, it is necessary to establish a judicial organ to demarcate, through judicial process, the boundary between individual liberty and public interest in providing for local order.
作者 张千帆
机构地区 北京大学法学院
出处 《中国法学》 CSSCI 北大核心 2004年第4期55-65,共11页 China Legal Science
  • 相关文献

参考文献31

  • 1张千帆.流浪乞讨与管制——从贫困救助看中央与地方权限的界定[J].法学研究,2004,26(3):39-51. 被引量:35
  • 2“南京‘禁乞令’昨起实施”,载《北京青年报》,2004年3月2日.
  • 3Robert Teir, Maintaining Safety and Civility in Public Spaces: A Constitutional Approach to Aggressive Begging, 54 Louisiana Law Review 285, at 298 - 299.
  • 4布莱斯特等.《宪法决策的过程-案例与材料》,中国政法大学出版社,2002年版,第144—161页.
  • 5Panda E. Kay, A Tale of Two Cities. A Comparative Analysis of the Causes and Legal Responses to Homelessness in New York City and London, 15 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 465,466 (1989) .
  • 6Robert C. Coates, The Legal Rights of Homeless Americans, 24 University of San Francisco Law Review 297, 298 (1990).
  • 7Caroline Latsen, Balancing the Books: The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and Separate Schools for Homeless Children in Arizona, 34 Arizona State Law Journal 705.
  • 8Juliette Smith, Arresting the Honmless for Sleeping in Public: A Paradigm for Expanding the Robinson Doctrine, 29 Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problcras 293 (1996).
  • 9Harry Simon, Towns without Pity: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis of Official Efforts to Drive Homeless Persons born American Cities,66 Tulane Law Review 631 (1992).
  • 10Joyce v. City and County of S.F., 846 F. Supp. 843 (N.D. Cal. 1994).

二级参考文献50

  • 1陈弘毅.论香港特别行政区法院的违宪审查权[J].中外法学,1998,10(5):12-18. 被引量:30
  • 2苏力.认真对待人治[J].华东政法大学学报,1998,6(1):8-13. 被引量:27
  • 3汉斯·凯尔森,张千帆.立法的司法审查——奥地利和美国宪法的比较研究[J].南京大学法律评论,2001(1):1-9. 被引量:16
  • 4华尔特.墨菲,张千帆.宪政主义[J].南京大学法律评论,2000(2):1-5. 被引量:6
  • 5王名扬.《法国行政法》[M].中国政法大学出版社,1988年版.第764页.
  • 6凯尔森.《法与国家的一般理论》[M].大百科全书出版社,1996年版..
  • 7Ronald Dworkin.Taking Rights Seriously.Cambridge:Harvard University Press(1978).p.198.
  • 8《关于在刑事判决中不宜援引宪法作论罪科刑的依据的复函》,研字第11298号.
  • 9《关于人民法院制作法律文书如何引用法律规范性文件的批复》,法(研)(1986)31号.
  • 10《关于以侵犯姓名权的手段侵犯宪法保护的公民受教育的基本权利是否应承担民事责任的批复》,法释(2001)25号.

共引文献80

同被引文献296

引证文献27

二级引证文献52

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部