国际人权条约在各国法院的可适用性问题研究

Research on the Applicability of International Human Rights Treaties in Domestic Courts

当前,一些国家在实践中面临公民个体以国际人权条约作为准据法在国内法院主张权利救济之情形,这也引发了各国对国际人权条约在本国法院可适用性问题的争议。对于该问题,各国法院往往从条约解释的角度切入,采用不同的解释方法和分析路径,出现了肯定性和否定性两极立场分化。回溯可适用性的法律原理,可以发现各国对国际人权条约在本国法院可适用性问题的判断实际呈现出一种共性的逻辑:一方面对特定人权条约的可裁判性进行显性评价,另一方面则对该条约在客观上是否适合由法院适用做出隐性考量。各国当前的立场分歧主要源于对“条约是否为私人主体创设了诉权”和“条约是否对缔约国施加了具体义务”两个问题的不同结论。基于此,结合相关人权条约的约文及缔约背景,可以从私人诉权、缔约国义务以及具体国情三个角度进一步归纳特定人权条约在国内法院可适用性问题的具体标准。

In contemporary legal practice,a notable trend has been observed where individuals in various countries invoke international human rights treaties as a legal basis for seeking remedies in domestic courts.This trend has sparked significant debate concerning the applicability of these treaties within national judicial systems.To navigate this complex issue,domestic courts across different countries have been employing different methodologies based on treaty interpretation,influenced by their distinct constitutional frameworks,legal traditions,historical context,and political climates,leading to a split in judicial opinions,with some courts affirming and others dissenting on the matter.Fundamental to these discussions is the concept of applicability,which assessing if these treaties are both adjudicable and appropriate to be used as a legal basis for judicial decision-making in individual disputed cases.Despite the varying stances of different countries on the applicability of international human rights treaties in their domestic courts,a closer look at the legal doctrine of applicability unveils a consistent rationale in judicial assessments.This common thread is twofold:an explicit evaluation of the adjudicability of specific human rights treaties,followed by an implicit consideration of their suitability for application in domestic courts,considering the unique national context of each country.The process typically starts with courts assessing the adjudicability of an international human rights treaty.Judicial practices indicate that the core debate centers on the interpretation of treaties,specifically concerning whether a treaty is intended to create a private right of action and whether it imposes definitive obligations on the state parties.In determining whether a treaty establishes a private right of action,domestic courts commonly undertake an objective examination of the treaty's wording,its drafting context,the intentions of the signatory states,and other background information.Additionally,the examination of whether a treaty imposes specific obligations on states involves a critical analysis to distinguish between"obligations of conduct"and"obligations of result".Upon confirming the adjudicability of a treaty,courts proceed with an implicit evaluation of its practical implementation,in the context of their national contexts.This phase involves analyzing a range of factors.Furthermore,in cases involving disputes between individuals and state authorities,courts across various countries encounter the complex task of striking a balance between upholding treaty obligations,while carefully avoiding undue scrutiny of state authorities that might impinge on state sovereignty and interests.Typically,it is the role of international courts and human rights treaty monitoring bodies to evaluate states'adherence to treaty obligations.Assigning this role to domestic courts could result in an overwhelming burden,potentially compromising their independence and impartiality.Therefore,domestic courts across various countries confront a critical dilemma in balancing their duty to provide judicial remedies as prescribed by international human rights treaties with the broader implications of these actions.This situation further raises a vital question:how can a country maintain the stability of its legal system and uphold the integrity of its judiciary while simultaneously complying with the requirements and goals of human rights treaties?This question merits profound and careful consideration.