宪法中的禁止保护不足原则——兼与比例原则对比论证

Principle of Prohibiting Insufficient Protection in the Constitution

针对基本权利国家保护义务的履行,应适用禁止保护不足原则审查立法者采取的保护方案是否达到了宪法要求。禁止保护不足原则与比例原则在结构上不具备对称性,仿照比例原则建构禁止保护不足原则并不可行。无论是否存在基本权利冲突,禁止保护不足原则均只对立法者提出最低保护要求,只要立法者的不作为对被保护人而言具有期待可能性,立法者就不违反禁止保护不足原则。判断期待可能性应综合考量多项因素,并在现代科学和技术认知的基础上,以当前社会个体的通常接受度和容忍度为标准。当涉及基本权利冲突时,在比例原则与禁止保护不足原则的双向约束下,立法者仍然享有一定的决策空间。较之比例原则,禁止保护不足原则留给立法者的决策空间通常更大。

Regarding the fulfillment of the state obligation to protect fundamental rights,the principle of prohibiting insufficient protection should be applied to examine whether the protection plan adopted by legislators meets the constitutional requirements.There is no structural symmetry between the principle of prohibiting insufficient protection and the principle of proportionality,and it is not feasible to construct the former by imitating the latter.Regardless of whether there is a conflict of fundamental rights,the principle of prohibiting insufficient protection only puts forward the minimum protection requirements for legislators.As long as the(partial)legislative inaction is anticipated to be possible for the protected person,legislators will not violate this principle.In the determination of anticipated possibility,comprehensive consideration should be made of a number factors and,on the basis of modern scientific and technological cognition,the current normal level of acceptance and tolerance by social individuals should be taken as the standard.In the case of conflict of fundamental rights,legislators still have a certain decision-making space under the two-way constraint of the two principles.Compared with the principle of proportionality,the principle of prohibiting insufficient protection usually leaves legislators with more decision-making space.