| 中文摘要 |
在這篇文章裡,我檢視了在東亞,國際人權法與內國憲法之間,目前所存在的連結。在這個區域內,傳統上單一主權的概念,並沒有成為確保與擴大這兩個規範體系的互動很好的傳導工具。如同我在文章中所舉的例子,在韓國憲法法院、與日本法院所作成的判決中,這些實務見解反映了國際人權法在內國憲法訴訟中常被拒絕適用。我指出,人權公約本身具有了獨立(sui generis)、與立法的性質,因此有必要重新認識傳統上對於這些公約的認識。在討論完,為什麼東亞國家經常不願意參與國際上的人權論述之後,我提出幾個擴大國際人權法與內國憲法之間連結,所能夠取得的好處。除了一些很實際的好處之外,國際人權法能夠成為,讓不同的人權概念彼此間互動並且在溝通上取得理性的標準,的一個平台。在這個觀點之下,東亞國家應該更積極地加入這個人權理念的「市場」或「交換所」,以提出他們的規範經驗與期待,以共同重建一個人權論述的和平系統。 |
| 英文摘要 |
In this article, I have looked at the present state of interfaces between international human rights law and national constitutions in East Asia. The persistence of the traditional monadic conception of sovereignty in the region has not been quite conducive to the securing and expansion of the interfaces between the two normative realms. This state of affairs is reflected in the dismissal or underuse of international human rights law in constitutional litigations, as I tried to show by analyzing the practice of the Korean Constitutional Court and some of the Japanese courts. In so doing, I pointed out the sui generis and legislative" nature of human rights treaties and emphasized the need to reformulate the traditional conception of these treaties. After discussing some of the reasons why the East Asian nations have been reluctant to engage in the discourse of human rights on the international stage, I dealt with the benefits to be derived from the expansion of interfaces between international human rights law and national constitutions. Apart from some practical benefits, international human rights law provides a forum or arena where various human rights ideas interact with each other and reach a communicatively rational calibration. In that light, the East Asian nations are encouraged to engage in this marketplace" or clearing-house" of human rights ideas more actively and channel their normative experiences and expectations into a peaceful reconstruction of the human rights discourse as a polyphonic and diatopical system. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
