期刊文献+

高考“政审”的合法性与合宪性 被引量:1

The Legality and Constitutionality of the “Political Examination” in the College Entrance Examination
下载PDF
导出
摘要 政审有广狭两义,高考招生录取工作当中的“思想政治品德考核”可归为广义的政审,具有为高考录取筛选把关的性质和作用。地方教育行政主管部门有关高考“政审”的规定在性质上属于高考录取工作的前置程序。《中华人民共和国教育法》内含着高考“政审”的正当性,国家教育行政主管部门的规章或规范性文件为高考“政审”提供了一定的规范依据。高考“政审”构成了对公民受教育权的限制,运用宪法比例原则予以考察,可以得出目前该项制度总体合宪的结论,但具体实施细节应有所改进。将来在教育法律法规中可对高考“政审”制度作出更为明确、具体的规定。 There are narrow meaning and broad meaning in the Political Examination(PE)of China.The“ideological,political and moral assessment”in the college entrance examination can be classified as the broad political examination,which has the nature and function of screening and checking of college entrance examination.The regulations of the local education administrative department on the“political examination”of the college entrance examination belong to the pre-procedure of the college entrance examination in nature.The Education Law of the People’s Republic of China contains the legitimacy of the“political examination”of the college entrance examination.The regulations or normative documents of the national education administrative department provide a certain normative basis for the“political examination”of the college entrance examination.The“political examination”of college entrance examination constitutes a restriction on the citizens’right to education.By using the principle of constitutional proportion to investigate,a conclusion was obtained that the current system is generally constitutional,but the specific implementation details should be improved.In the future,the“political examination”system of college entrance examination can be more clear and specific provisions in education laws and regulations.
作者 夏引业 XIA Yinye(School of Law,Chongqing University,Chongqing 400030,China)
机构地区 重庆大学法学院
出处 《重庆高教研究》 CSSCI 2020年第2期104-114,共11页 Chongqing Higher Education Research
基金 重庆工商大学校内科研项目“中国国家结构形式问题研究”(1751037)
关键词 高考录取 “政审” 规范依据 受教育权 universities enrollments “political examination” base of regulation the right to education
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献33

  • 1摩西·科恩-埃利亚,易多波·拉特,刘权.比例原则与正当理由文化[J].南京大学法律评论,2012(2):35-57. 被引量:22
  • 2王可菊.国际人权条约缔约国的义务和权利[J].人权,2002(3):22-25. 被引量:2
  • 3王雪梅.儿童权利保护的“最大利益原则”研究(上)[J].环球法律评论,2002,24(125):493-497. 被引量:72
  • 4[3]Yves Daudet,Kishore Singh,The Right to Education:An Analysis of UNESCO's Standard-setting Instruments (UNESCO),43.
  • 5[2]Yves Daudet,Kishore Singh,The Right to Education:An Analysis of UNESCO's Standard-setting Instruments (UNESCO),45.
  • 6[2]Douglas Hodgson,The Human Right to Education (England Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd,& Ashgate Publishing Ltd.,1998),74-78.
  • 7[5]Katarina Tomasevski,Manual on Rights-based Education,Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education (UNESCO Bargkok,2004),9.
  • 8[6]Right to Education-Scope and Implementation:General Comment 13 on the Right to Education(Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights),Economic and Social Council,Twenty-first session,1999.38.
  • 9[1]Right to Education-Scope and Implementation:General Comment 13 on the Right to Education(Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights),Economic and Social Council,Twenty-first session,1999.32.
  • 10[2]Right to Education -Scope and Implementation:General Comment 13 on the Right to Education(Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights),Economic and Social Council,Twenty-first session,1999.40.

共引文献100

同被引文献25

引证文献1

二级引证文献2

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