Fundamental Social Rights and Existenzminimum

While fundamental individual rights are unquestionably taken as subjective rights, the same does not happen with fundamental social rights. If they are subjective rights, they are justiciable. The main argument in favor of this understanding is based on liberty. The main argument against is the so called formal argument. In relation to the pro argument, liberty can be either juridical or factual. Juridical liberty has no value without factual liberty, because the right to liberty is only put into practice if one has the factual preconditions for its exercise. The argument against is that their justiciability displaces the competence of the elaboration of public politics from Legislative and Executive to Judiciary Power, what violates the principles of separation of powers and democracy. Nevertheless they are subjective rights indeed, but special ones： they are primafacie subjective rights. There is only one subjective right that is a priori considered definitive： the right to Existenzminimum） Its content is not settled, but it is quite unequivocal that the rights to simple housing, fundamental education and minimum level of medical assistance are part of it. Existenzminimum is then related to the minimum necessary for factual liberty. Against the justiciability of fundamental social rights, there are also arguments related to juridification of politics, administrative discretion and the possible reserve clause. The counter-arguments refer to original and exceptional competence, necessary objective proof of state＇s economical incapability, prohibition of State＇s will, principles of legality and of non-obviation o f Judiciary jurisdiction, Existenzminimun guarantee.

Legal protection of the rights of clinical trial subjects in China

Subjects in clinical trials, either patients with the target disease or healthy vohmteers, inevitably run a risk of injury or even death. To protect human subjects＇ rights to life and health, the Declaration of Helsinki has been developed as ＂a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Though widely regarded as a milestone in human research ethics, it is not a law or regulation, and is unable to effectively protect human subjects＇ rights. In this context, China beefs up its legal protection of clinical trial subjects.

Hermeneutic Thinking on the Subject of Human Rights: Four Perspectives

from the view of human rights hermeneutics,the interpretation of the human rights subject can be understood as the philosophical foundation of human rights.as the rights of"ego"and"another",human rights will be rid of the supreme power of the"God"and"nation",while it dooms the dilemma of solipsism and hegemony.as the right of"the Other",human rights will correspond to the reality of political pluralism,however that theory appears to be too deconstructive and may lead to human rights nihilism.By accepting the continuity between individuality and community,a more feasible and non-exclusive approach is to adopt the idea of"Self"to better understand the nature of human rights,thus avoiding extreme human rights universality and relativism.

Pastoral Poets＇ Different Expectations From Nature in Chinese and Western Cultures

Though there is no exact equivalence of western ＂pastoral＂ in Chinese, the description of nature did appear abundantly in both cultures. Western pastorals can be traced back to Roman times while Chinese ＂Tian Yuan Shi＂ （田园诗）, which may serve the best similarities, appeared as early as in East-Jin Dynasty （316-420 A.D.）. Poets in both cultures praised country life and wanted to have a rest in the nature. Despite these similarities or ＂parallel＂, there are also some differences in two kinds of literature which have been widely discussed. Among all the differences, nature＇s function-spirit purification and consolation or a refuge-in fact varies in Chinese and western pastoral poetries. This means what the authors of these literary works expected from nature by panegyrizing nature highly and indulging themselves in nature differ significantly in two cultures. This phenomenon has been under thoughtful investigation. Different cultural, religious and historical backgrounds in Chinese and western cultures are exploited to explain these differences. However, these explanations are all phenomena themselves and lack the definitiveness and inevitability. The different western history opposite to the absence of subjective rights in China, which can find further resource in cultural geography, is examined in this paper to provide a more desirable answer.