期刊文献+

西方国家体育权利均等化的三大基石及对我国的启示

Equalization of Sport Rights Based on the Three Footstones in Western Countries
下载PDF
导出
摘要 体育权利均等化是现代社会公民权利的基本体现,西方国家对于公民体育权利的研究开展较早。从自由与平等、体制构建、社会调控3个层面分别论述西方国家体育权利均等化的思想、制度、实施三大基石。据此提出对我国的启示。 The equalization of sport fights is the embodiment of modern citizen fight. The research on the citizen sport fight in the western countries started earlier than in China. This paper discusses the three footstones--thought, system and implementation--of the sport fight equalization in western countries from three aspects, that is, freedom and equality, establishment of system and the social control. Then it gives some inspirations to the equalization of sport fights in China.
作者 童丽平
出处 《上海体育学院学报》 CSSCI 北大核心 2014年第4期58-62,共5页 Journal of Shanghai University of Sport
基金 浙江省哲学社会科学规划重点课题(12JCWH02Z)
关键词 西方国家 体育权利 均等化 基石 western countries sport right equalization footstone
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献21

  • 1于善旭.再论公民的体育权利[J].体育文化导刊,1998(1):31-33. 被引量:51
  • 2谭华.试论体育的权利和义务[J].成都体育学院学报,1984,10(3):13-17. 被引量:18
  • 3[1]Thomss Hobbes.Of Liberty and Necessity[A].in Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity[C] Ve-re Chappell (ed.).Cambridge.Cambridge University Press,1999.
  • 4[2]Cees Leijenhorst.Hobbes's Theory of Causality and Its Aristotelian Background[J].Monist 79 (3):426~447,1996.
  • 5[3]Bramhall.Discourse of Liberty ang Necessity[A].In Hobbes ang Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity[C].Ve-re Chappell (ed.) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999.
  • 6[4]Vere Chappell (ed.) Hobbes ang Bramhall on Liberty ang Necessity[C].
  • 7[5]Thomas Hobbse.The Questions Concernin8 Liberty,Necssity and Chance[A].in Hobbes ang Dramhall on Liberty ang Nccessity[C].Cambridge:Cambridge U-niversity Press,1999.
  • 8[6]Thomas Hobbes.The Elements of law[A].in Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999.
  • 9[1]关于霍布斯与布拉姆霍尔的争论的原始文献,见Vere Chappell(ed.),Hobbel and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999).对霍布斯的自由理论的一此详细论述,参见 W.von Leyden,Hobbes andLecke:The Politics of Freedom and Obligation (London:London School d Economics and Political Science,1981),especiallychapters 1~2; David van Mill.Liberty.Rationality.and Agency in Hobbes's Leviathan (New York:State University of New YorkPress,2001).也见 Leopold Damrosch,Jr.(1979)," Hobbes as Reformation Theologian:Implications for the Free-Will Con-troversy" Journal of the History Ideas40 (3):339~352; M.M.Goldsmith (1989)," Hobbes on Liberty",Hobbes Studies2:23~39; F.C.Hood (1967)," The Change in Hobbes's Definition or Liberty",Philosophical Quarterly 17 (67):150~163;J.Roland Pennock (1960)," Hobbes's Choosing Charity'-The Case of Liberty",American Political Science Review 54 (2):428~436; Quentin Skinner (1990)," Thomas Hobbes on the Proper Signification of Liberty",Transactions of the Royal Historical So-ciety 40:121~151.
  • 10莱昂·狄骥[法].宪法学教程[M].王文利,译.沈阳:辽海出版社,春风文艺出版社,1999:197.

共引文献17

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