解释性适用:国际人权法在国内法院适用的新趋势被引量：6

下载PDF

导出

摘要采行一元论和采行二元论的国家,在司法实践中出现了某种融合的趋势,解释性适用方法被广泛采用。这种方法以国内法为依托,通过援引国际人权法解释国内法的方式,实现国际人权法在国内的间接适用。可以作为解释资源的国际人权文件范围广泛,实际范围会受到各国国内法院所持的不同原理的影响。按照对国际法和国内法关系的不同理解,国内法院解释适用的具体方法可以被分为"立足于国内价值"的方法和"立足于国际价值"的方法两类。在国际人权法尚无法在我国法院直接适用的情况下,"解释性适用"方法为我们提供了一个突破现实瓶项的可选路径。具体而言,我们应当立足于"国内价值",从价值增进型、价值确认型和语境解释这三种方法中选择适当的方法进行探索性实践和运用。

作者张雪莲

机构地区东南大学法学院

出处《东方法学》 CSSCI 2016年第5期73-80,共8页 Oriental Law

关键词解释性适用国际人权法国内法院解释方法

分类号 D998.2 [政治法律—国际法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献22

1Christopher Harlan,The Status of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)in the Domestic Law of State Parties: An Initial Global Survey Through UN Human Rights Committee Documents. Human Rights Quarterly, 22 (2000).
2See Bangalore Principles, in 1988 Colloquium, at x.
3See The Challenge of Bangalore.Making Human Rights a Practical Reality, in Developing Human Rights Jurisprudence, at 268 (Commonwealth Secretariat ed.,2001 ).
4See Dinah Shehon, ed.International Law and Domestic Legal Systems:Incorportion,Transformation,and Persuasion.Oxford University Press,2011.pp.229--234.
5See Abe Kohki. Implementation of Universal Human Rights Standards in Japan:An Interface of National and International Law.in Rainer Arnold(ed.) The Universalism of Human Rights. Springer Netherlands,2013.pp.132--135.
6See Dinah Shelton, ed.International Law and Domestic Legal Systems:lncorportion, Transform~ion, and Persuasion.Oxford University Press, 2011 .pp.376--379,490---492.
7Baker v. Canada( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ) [ 1999 ] 2 SCR 817 (Baker).
8Pratt v. Attorney-General for Jamaica,AC[ 1994] 2,p.1.
9Grootboom v.Oostenberg Municipality,2000( 3 )BCLR 277 (CC).
10United States v. Bums,[2001 ]1 S.C.R. 283.

二级参考文献54

1孙世彦.欧洲人权制度中的“自由判断余地原则”述评[J].环球法律评论,2005,27(3):372-384. 被引量：13
2《公民权利和政治权利公约》第7条.
3Sarah Joseph, Jenny Schultz & Melissa Castan, The Interna- tional Covenant on Civil and Political Right: Cases, Materi- als, and Commentary (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, 2004) ,p. 4.
4Human Rights Committee, "Ceneral Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant", in Compilation of General Com- ments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol.1) (2008),p. 243 ,para. 3.
5Louis Henkin, "Introduction", in Louis Henkin (ed.), The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Columbia University Press, 1981 ),p. 27.
6Rudolf Bernhardt, "Thoughts on the interpretation of human- rights treaties",in Franz Matscher, and Herbert Petzold (eds.), Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension Studies in honour of Gerard J. Wiarda (Carl Heymanns, 1988), p. 67.
7Communication No. 50/1979,Gordon C. Van Duzen v.Canada, para. 10.2.
8Alex Conte, Scott Davidson and Richard Burchill, Defining Civil and Political Rights: The Jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Ashgate, 2004), p. 15, note 79.
9Human Rights Committee, "General comment No. 24: Issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant", in supra note 2, p. 210, para. 19.
10《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第3条,第61-76条.