关闭

关闭

关闭

封号提示

内容

首页 哲者为王?.pdf

哲者为王?.pdf

哲者为王?.pdf

上传者: 九月虺 2012-04-02 评分 0 0 0 0 0 0 暂无简介 简介 举报

简介:本文档为《哲者为王?pdf》,可适用于人文社科领域,主题内容包含philosopherkingsThispageintentionallyleftblankphilosopherkingstheadjudicat符等。

philosopherkingsThispageintentionallyleftblankphilosopherkingstheadjudicationofconflictinghumanrightsandsocialvaluesgeorgecchristieOxfordUniversityPress,Inc,publishesworksthatfurtherOxfordUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,andeducationOxfordNewYorkAucklandCapeTownDaresSalaamHongKongKarachiKualaLumpurMadridMelbourneMexicoCityNairobiNewDelhiShanghaiTaipeiTorontoWithofficesinArgentinaAustriaBrazilChileCzechRepublicFranceGreeceGuatemalaHungaryItalyJapanPolandPortugalSingaporeSouthKoreaSwitzerlandThailandTurkeyUkraineVietnamCopyrightbyOxfordUniversityPress,IncPublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress,IncMadisonAvenue,NewYork,NewYorkOxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPressOxfordUniversityPressisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress,IncAllrightsreservedNopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise,withoutthepriorpermissionofOxfordUniversityPress,IncLibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationDataChristie,GeorgeCPhilosopherkings:theadjudicationofconflictinghumanrightsandsocialvaluesGeorgeCChristiepcmIncludesbibliographicalreferencesandindexISBN(hardback:alkpaper)HumanrightsCasesITitleKC’dcPrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaonacidfreepaperNotetoReadersThispublicationisdesignedtoprovideaccurateandauthoritativeinformationinregardtothesubjectmattercoveredItisbaseduponsourcesbelievedtobeaccurateandreliableandisintendedtobecurrentasofthetimeitwaswrittenItissoldwiththeunderstandingthatthepublisherisnotengagedinrenderinglegal,accounting,orotherprofessionalservicesIflegaladviceorotherexpertassistanceisrequired,theservicesofacompetentprofessionalpersonshouldbesoughtAlso,toconfirmthattheinformationhasnotbeenaffectedorchangedbyrecentdevelopments,traditionallegalresearchtechniquesshouldbeused,includingcheckingprimarysourceswhereappropriate(BasedontheDeclarationofPrinciplesjointlyadoptedbyaCommitteeoftheAmericanBarAssociationandaCommitteeofPublishersandAssociations)ToSerge,Rebecca,andNickThispageintentionallyleftblankFreedomisahardthingtopreserveInordertohaveenoughyoumusthavetoomuchClarenceDarrow,ThispageintentionallyleftblankcontentsAcknowledgmentsxiPrefacexiiipartiprolegomenaChapterIntroductionChapter“Rights”DiscourseChapterStructuralImpedimentstoConsistentApplicationof“Universal”HumanRightspartiithedifficultissuesChapterTheEnlargedViewofRightsinContemporaryConstitutionsandHumanRightsConventionsTheNotionofDefeasibleRightsChapterLitigationInvolvingaConflictofRights,EachofEqualValuepartiiithelimitedhelpfromphilosophyandthesocialsciencesChapterTheEpistemologyofJudicialDecisionMakingChapterTheUnsuccessfulAttempttoFindaPhilosophical“NorthStar”toAidinJudicialDecisionMakingChapterTheUseofBalancingTestsandFactorAnalysisTheInevitableTendencytoResorttoBrightLineTestspartivcasebycaseadjudicationChapterAnOverviewofCasebyCaseAdjudication,ItsPossibleGoals,andtheInfluenceofLegalTraditionsChapterTheOptimalConditionsforCasebyCaseAdjudicationandItsLimitsChapterCasebyCaseAdjudicationofContentiousHumanRightsControversiespartvconclusionChapterWhatIfWeMustChooseBibliographyTableofCasesIndexThispageintentionallyleftblankacknowledgmentsManypeoplehaveassistedmeinthepreparationofthisbookAnumberofthemwerestudentsattheDukeLawSchoolMyprincipalstudentresearchassistantsonthisbookhavebeenMaciejBorowiczandTomWatterson,andIalsoreceivedvaluableassistancefromothers,particularlyKarenBeachandGregMcDonoughIoweagreatdebttothereferencelibrariansattheDukeLawLibrary,especiallytoKristinaAlayan,JenniferBehrens,MollyBrownfield,andKatherineTopulosTheirpromptandefficientresponsetomyinquiriessignificantlyeasedmyburdensVeryspecialthanksmustgotothefriendswhoreadthisbookindraftform:PeterGlazebrook,whoalsohelpedmeonmattersofBritishlaw,MichaelMirande,aformerstudentofmine,andHJeffersonPowell,whohadthepatiencetoreadtwoplusdraftsofthisbookWithoutthemoralsupportofJeffPowellandofmywife,Deborah,whoalsoverypainstakinglywentoverthedraftmanuscript,IhavesomedoubtswhetherIcouldhaveperseveredinwhatIhavecometoappreciateinretrospectwasaveryambitiousprojectIwouldberemissifIdidnotalsoacknowledgethehelponFrenchlawprovidedbyJohnBell,orifIdidnotexpressmygratitudetothejudgesandstaffoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightswhowerekindenoughtowelcomemeonavisittoobservetheCourtinJuneOfthemanypeoplewhoworkedonthemanuscript,DanaNorvellandBalfourSmith,bothofwhomreadandhelpededittheentiremanuscript,areparticularlydeservingofmentionImustalsothankPatRoz,whowasalwaysreadytopitchinwheneverneededFinally,IshouldliketoexpressmyappreciationofthesupportprovidedbytheEugeneTBost,JrResearchProfessorshipoftheCharlesACannonCharitableTrustNo,whichenabledmetotakearesearchleaveforthespringsemesterandoftheDukeLawSchoolforprovidingmewithasabbaticalleaveduringthefallsemesterofThispageintentionallyleftblankprefaceTheambitiousgoalofthisbook,assuggestedbyitsalternatetitle,istoexaminehow,ifatall,courtscandealwithcasesinvolvingtheintersectionandevenoutrightconflictbetweenfreedomofexpressionandthegrowingnumberofotherindividualandsocialrightsandvaluesthatdevelopedsocietieshaveacceptedasworthprotectingthroughthejudicialprocessAssomeonewhoseacademicconcernshavealwayscenteredaroundthesubjectoflegalreasoning,aninterestinwhathasbecomethesubjectofthisbookwasinitiallypiquedwhen,asIdescribeinChapter,Isawthatsignificantdifferencesexistedbetweencommonlawandcivillawmethodsoflegalargumentationandthat,asaresult,thesamelegaltextmightbeapplieddifferentlyinacommonlawsystemthanitwouldbeinacivillawsystemIsoonrealizedthatnotonlyweretheredifferentapproachestolegalproblemsentrenchedinthoselegalcultures,butalso,andmoreimportantly,thatthesedifferencesweretheresultofdifferentviewsofthenatureandfunctionofthestateTheseviewsofthenatureandfunctionofthestatehavebecomeparticularlyvisibleasnationsontheinternationalaswellasthenationallevelchoosetodelegatetocourtsthedifficultjobofprovidingcontexttoawiderangeofsocalledhumanrightsthatarevaguelyworded,explicitlydeclaredtobedefeasible,andthat,insomecases,areexpresslydeclaredtobeofequalvaluetoothersimilarlydefinedrightswithwhichtheymightinevitablycomeinconflictGiventheincreasingrecognitionoftheexistenceofwhatmightbecalleduniversalhumanrights,itisasubjectthatcanonlyadequatelybeapproachedfromacomparativeperspectiveIhavefocusedmuchofmyattentionondecisionsintheUnitedStatesandondecisionsinEuroperenderedbycourtsintheUnitedKingdomandbytheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsTheneedtoconsiderattheinternationallevelthedecisionsoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsisobviousAsof,thenumberofjudgmentsissuedbytheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightshadexceededbyafactorofatleasttwentythenumberofjudgmentsissuedbytheInterAmericanCourtofHumanRightsThethirdandonlyotherinternationalcourtofhumanrights,theAfricanCourtonHumanandPeoples’Rights,issueditsfirstjudgmentinDecemberTheEuropeanCourtofJusticealsodealswithwhatmightbecalledhumanrightsThisisanaturalconsequenceofthefactthattheTreatyofRomedoescontaina“SocialChapter”andthatArticleoftheLisbonTreatyexpresslyadoptstheEuropeanCharterofFundamentalRightsof,as“adaptedatStrasbourgonDecember,,”anddirectstheEuropeanUniontoaccedetotheEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedomsNotsurprisingly,theEuropeanCourtofJusticehasacceptedthedecisionsoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsaspartofitsjurisprudencexivprefacealthoughthereisnoformalrequirementforittohavedonesoIndoingso,itdeclaredthat“respectforfundamentalrightsformsanintegralpartofthegeneralprinciplesoflawprotectedbytheCourtofJusticeTheprotectionofsuchrights,whilstinspiredbytheconstitutionaltraditionscommontotheMemberstates,mustbeensuredwithintheframeworkofthestructureandobjectivesoftheCommunity”ThusfarmanyoftheEuropeanCourtofJustice’sdecisionsinthisareahavefocusedondiscriminationintheworkplaceThisisunderstandablebecausethetreatiesthatoriginallyestablishedthejurisdictionoftheorgansoftheEuropeanUniondidnotexplicitlyrefertoindividualrightsandparticularlynottheindividualrightsonwhichweshalllargelybefocusingasthediscussionproceedsThereasonforincludingmanyreferencestoUnitedStateslawisthattheAmericandecisionsoftenconflictwiththoseofEuropeancourtsandthisconflictprovidesavaluableplatformforacomparativestudyFinally,thedecisionsofthecourtsoftheUnitedKingdomarealsoanobviouschoiceformajorconsiderationnotonlybecauseoftheirownintrinsicinterestbutalsobecausetheyrepresentamajorandgoodfaithefforttoaccommodatevalueslonggivenprimacyinthecommonlawtothemorecomplexanddiffusesystemofvaluesenshrinedintheEuropeanConventionThepointofthisbookistoexaminehowthecourtscandealwithaworldinwhichmanyvaluesincreasinglycompetewithfreedomofexpression,includingfreedomofreligiousexpression,withoutthecourtsthemselvestakingontheroleofmoralarbiterIwilldiscusswaysinwhichthismightbesuccessfullydoneincontextsinwhichrightsofprivacyorimportantstateinterestsareinpotentialconflictwithfreedomofexpression,butIalsowillbeobligedtoacknowledgethepossibilitythatwemayintheendnotbeabletocomeupwithacompletelysatisfactorymethodInthatcase,wemaybeforcedeithertoabandonourcommitmenttoaregimeofmultiplebasicrightssomeofwhichareofequalvalue,oracceptthat,despiteourprotestationstothecontrary,weareinpracticeimplicitlyfavoringonerightorsocialvalueoveranotherCase,InternationaleHandelsgesellschaftvEinfuhrundVorratssellefürGetreideundFuttermitel,ECR,See,eg,CaseC,DeutscheTelekomvSchröder,ECRIForagoodsummaryofallbutthemostrecentofthesedevelopments,seeElizabethFDefeis,HumanRightsandtheEuropeanCourtofJustice:AnAppraisal,FORDHAMINT’LLJ()SeealsoSuzanneBurri,ThePositionoftheEuropeanCourtofJusticewithRespecttotheEnforcementofHumanRights,inCHANGINGPERCEPTIONSOFSOVEREIGNTYANDHumanRights:ESSAYSINHONOUROFCEESFLINTERMAN–(InekeBoerefijnandJennyEGoldschmidteds,)AndrewWilliams,RespectingFundamentalRightsintheNewUnion:AReview,inTHEFUNDAMENTALSOFEULAWREVISITED(CatherineBarnarded,)partiprolegomenaThispageintentionallyleftblankintroductionOneofthemostimportantcharacteristicsofthecontemporaryworldisthegrowingacceptanceoftheideathattherearetrulyuniversalhumanrights,andthatcourtswhetherontheinternationalorthenationallevelaretheappropriatebodiestoadjudicatedisputesastothecontentofthoserightsandtheirapplicationtoconcretesituationsThisisabookabouthowcourtsmightperformthattaskItbeginswithadescriptionofhowcourtshavethusfartriedtoperformthattask,thenexaminestheproblemsthatareencounteredastheytrytoperformthattask,andfinallyexplorestheseveralwaysthathavebeensuggestedastohowtheymightmoresatisfactorilyperformthattaskindealingwiththeeverexpandingvolumeoflitigation,particularlyinEurope,onthecontentandscopeofanysuchrightsBecause,asexplainedinthepreface,themostdevelopedjurisprudenceonthecontent,scope,andapplicationofhumanrightslawisinEuropeandtheUnitedStates,thisbookwillfocusprimarily,butnotexclusively,ondecisionsfromtheUnitedStatesandfromEuropeancourtssuchastheHouseofLordsandparticularlytheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights,whichhashandledmorehumanrightsdisputesthanallotherinternationalcourtscombinedovertheentirecourseofhumanhistoryThebookfocusesinlargepart,butnotexclusively,ondisputesinvolvingtherighttofreedomofexpression,therighttoreligiouspracticeandexpression,andtherightofprivacy,notonlybecausetheserightsareinvolvedinmanycontemporarydisputes,butalsobecausethereismuchdisagreementastothereachoftheserights,sincetheexerciseofanyoneofthesethreecategoriesofrightsoftencomesinconflictwiththeexerciseofanotherofthoserightsorwithcertainimportantstateinterestsTheproblemfacedbythecourtshereisoneofinterpretationandtheresolutionofconflictsbetweenimportanthumaninterestsThesesortsofconflictsaregenerallynotinvolvedincasesinvolvingtheenforcementofwhatmostpeoplewouldacceptasincontrovertiblehumanentitlementssuchasnottobeenslavednortobethevictimsofgenocideoroftorturematterswhere,asapracticalmatter,theonlyrealissueisnormallytheenforcementofthesebroadlyaccepteduniversallegalprohibitionsbypoliticalmeans,includingsometimestheapplicationofforceTheappellatejurisdictionoftheHouseofLordsceasedtoexistasofJuly,Itssuccessor,theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedKingdom,becameoperationalonOctober,TherearenosubstantivechangesinjurisdictionorinthemodeofhearingappealsSeenote,infraSeeKarenJAlter,DelegatingtoInternationalCourts:SelfBindingvsOtherBindingDelegation,LawContempProbs,–()philosopherkingsThenotionofhumanrights,andevenofuniversalhumanrights,hasalonghistoryWeshallhaveoccasiontorefertosomeofthehistoricaldevelopmentofthenotionofhumanrightsinthenextchapterWhatwemightremarkonhereisthebreathtakingexpansionoftherangeofasserteduniversalhumanrightsandtheuseofcourtstoprotectthoserights,aphenomenonthattookwinginthelastquarterofthetwentiethcenturyUndoubtedlytheincreasingglobalizationoftheworldeconomyhasmadeiteasiertoenvisionabodyofenforceablehumanrightslawthat,liketradelaw,transcendsnationalboundariesSohasourrapidlychangingvisionoftheroleofthestateanditsgrowingresponsibilityfornotonlytheeconomicbutalsotheemotionalwelfareofitscitizens,aswellas,perhapsinevitably,theincreasingdependenceoncourtstofacilitatethesmoothfunctioningofallthesechangesonbothanationalandaninternationallevelThisacceleratingrelianceoncourtsisaparticularlyprominentfeatureoftheburgeoningfieldofhumanrightsOnthenationallevel,entrustingcourtstoresolvecontentiousandoftenextremelycomplexissuesreflectsagrowingsocialdemandforstaterecognitionandprotectionofwhatarecomingtobeconsideredbasichumanrightsAtthesametime,thistrendalsoreflectsamistrustoftheabilityofthelegislativeandexecutivearmsofgovernmenttorecognizeandprotectthoserightsadequatelyOntheinternationallevel,italsoreflectstheviewthatthereareissueswhichtranscendtheauthorityofindividualnationstatesandwhichthereforecanonlybegovernedbyauniversallawthat,thoughinfluencedbytheactionsofnationstates,mustultimatelybediscoveredanddeclaredbycourtswhosemembersareinsomewayindependentofthepoliticalcontrolofanyindividualnationstateSince,however,thereisnotrulyfunctioningworldgovernment,thisinpracticemeanscourtsthataresubjecttonoeffectivelegallysanctionedpoliticalcontrolThisresorttocourtsratherthanpoliticalactiontodefineandresolvethefundamentalissuesunderlyingtheexpansionofhumanrightslawthatisthefocusofthisbookremindsone,inaway,ofmedievalnaturallawtheoriesinwhichtherewasnonecessaryconnectionbetweenpoliticsandlawThereis,however,amajordifferenceInadynamicworldsuchastheoneinwhichwelive,itisthecourtsasexpositorsofanevolvinglawthatareattheapexofthesystem,ratherthanarelativelystaticnaturallawwhichisnotdependentonanyhumaninstitutionsforitsauthorityWhatissharedbythesetwosituationsisthebeliefthatthereareuniversallyknownor,atleast,universallyknowablenormsofuniversalapplicationConsideringhumanbeingsintheircapacityasdiscreteindividuals,itishardtodenythatweeachbelieveinsomesortofuniversalvaluesAsChaïmPerelmannoted,thisappealtouniversalvaluesisimplicitinourreferencestobeauty,SeeSamuelMoyn,TheLastUtopia()introductionjustice,oreventruthThishumancharacteristicofappealingtouniversalvaluesiswhathetriedtocaptureinwhathecalleddiscoursedirectedtothe“universalaudience,”afeatureofhumancommunicationandargumentationthatwasalsocapturedbyGeorgeHerbertMead’snotionof“universaldiscourse”Asthediscussionproceeds,weshallhaveseveraloccasionstodiscussthisfeatureofhumanbeliefandpracticeatgreaterlengthWhatisevenmorecrucialtotheinquiryofthisbook,however,istheadditionalassumptionrepeatedlymadebymanypeopleandagainreminiscentofnaturallawtheorythatthereisactualagreementonthecontentofmanyofourbasicsocialvalues,andespeciallythosethatunderliethemodernnotionofuniversalhumanrightsThatmanyhumanbeingshavelongbelievedinthepotentialknowabilityofuniversalandconcretelyapplicablemoraltruthsisundeniableWemay,forexample,recallCicero’sresponsetothecontentionthattherecannottrulybeauniversalnaturallawbecausethereisnouniversalagreementastothe

用户评论(0)

0/200

精彩专题

上传我的资料

每篇奖励 +2积分

资料评价:

/42
仅支持在线阅读

意见
反馈

立即扫码关注

爱问共享资料微信公众号

返回
顶部