Constitutional Nature of Personality Rights and Its Manifestation in Civil Law

The formation of personality comes from people’s choices and pursuit of self-realization,which is influenced by objective factors but not determined by them,so personality does not belong to the domain of objectivity.The concept of general personality rights in the German Constitution was initially premised on the objective determinability in the field of personality,but in constitutional jurisprudence,it gradually shifted to something with individual autonomy as the core and personal self-realization as the goal,and the scope of relevant rights expanded accordingly,so that they could not be clearly distinguished from general freedom of action and thus became the general principle of constitutional rights.The protection of constitutional personality rights in the United States and Japan can also confirm this process,providing evidence for the constitutional nature of personality rights.Deeper research shows that constitutional personality rights actually manifest the highest value of modern constitutions—human dignity.In contrast,the theoretical justification of personality rights in civil law just lies in the objectivity and defensive nature of personality elements.

The Logical Construction of International Its Realization Path——Taking the Marrakesh Treaty as an Example

The Marrakesh Treaty is an excellent subject for China to disseminate its concept of the rule of law around the globe.With the changes of the times,the content and way of international communication regarding the rule of law are changing constantly.In the era of globalization,countries have strengthened rational communication and dialogue mainly by concluding international treaties to convey the concept of the rule of law.For the international communication of the rule of law,it is necessary to take into account three elements:Subject,content,and audience.Targeted strategies are adopted to present the characteristics of diversified subjects,rich content,and stratified audience.The agenda-setting,spiral of silence,and cultivation theories provide positive guidance for international communication.The audience survey and content analysis methods can achieve good effects in spreading the rule of law.It is necessary to integrate multiple subjects,create rich content,carry out targeted strategies to different audience,underscore the evaluation of effects,and train talents to strengthen the international communication of the rule of law.

Sci-tech Progress and Human Rights Development——Review of the 2022·China-Europe Seminar on Human Rights

The 2022·China-Europe Seminar on Human Rights,successfully held in Wuhan and Vienna on May 10,2022,was sponsored by the China Society for Human Rights Studies and Austria-China Friendship Association and organized by the Institute for Human Rights Law of Huazhong University of Science and Technology,the National Human Rights Education and Training Base,and Austria-China Law Association.Scholars at home and abroad conducted extensive exchanges on the conceptual guidance and practical experience of actively promoting the balanced development of scientific and technological innovation and human rights protection,and discussed the problems and countermeasures in the practice of human rights protection in in relation to the advances in science and technology.The meeting reached a consensus on respecting and protecting human rights in the era of science and technology having become a new trend and new feature in the development of human rights amidst the collision of different viewpoints and the exchange of multi-party dialogues.It also further advocated that all countries actively carry out international cooperation in the field of science and technology,so that science and technology can make greater contributions to promoting the development of human rights in the world and building a community with a shared future for human beings.

Right to Family Life:Convergent Interpretation between Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong&Macao SARs

In the course of implementing the Constitution and theBasic Law in the Chinese mainland and the Hong Kong and MacaoSpecial Administrative Regions, the core content of “family life” (especiallythe part involving the parent-child relationship), which is abasic right at the constitutional level, has finally been recognized bythe competent authorities as “close ties between family members.”The convergent interpretation of basic rights by competent authoritiesin the Chinese mainland and the two special administrative regions,at least in terms of “family life,” is fundamentally due to the fact thatunder similar social, economic and population conditions, they havereached a consensus on understanding the core content of basic rightsunder the influence of international human rights law. On the basis ofthis convergent interpretation, there should be no longer significantdifferences in the basic rights enjoyed by Chinese citizens in the Chinesemainland and Hong Kong & Macao.

UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF RECIPROCITY REQUIREMENT FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN JAPAN

This article deals with reciprocity requirement for recognition of foreign judgments in Japan. Following German law, Japanese law requires reciprocity to the rendering state in addition to the jurisdiction of the state, the service of process, and the compatibility with Japanese public policy. Although Japanese courts have rarely refused the recognition of foreign judgments for lack of reciprocity for a long time, some Chinese judgments recently have not been recognized for this reason. The author clarifies first with historical review what was the purpose of the Japanese legislator, when the original law of 1890 required the reciprocity by international treaties, and when later the reform law of 1926 required the simple reciprocity that is similarly provided in the current law. The author surveys then the Japanese case law concerning the reciprocity requirement after the reform of 1926. The author focuses further on the reciprocity between Japan and China and compares the Japanese practice with the German one that led to a different result. Last, it is concluded that the reciprocity requirement is contrary to the protection of human rights under Japanese constitution.