天易网

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 5269|回复: 8

学人权-2

  [复制链接]
发表于 4/9/2011 05:28:13 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 AIFAN 于 4/9/2011 04:50 编辑

1.Introduction (介绍)
1.1Curbing the royal prerogative (抑制君主特权)
1)The King cannot arrest subjects or pass judgment in court. 国王不能扣留财产或不能影响法院审判
这是1607年的一个案子,法院的判决是: The King cannot arrest anyone. He may sit in the Court but the Court gives the judgment, not the King. 国王不能逮捕任何人.但是应该由法院,而不是由国王来作出判决.
感想: 那是1607年,英国的司法独立性就体现出来了.不但体现了对人权的尊重,更为英国的后来的强大奠定了坚实的法律基础.

2)The King cannot simply announce changes in the law. 国王不能仅凭君权宣布改变法律条文

3)The Kind cannot bypass Parliament to raise taxes.国王不能饶开议会去征税.
这是1637年的一个判决.当时在位的国王查理一世在没有议会同意的情况下签发了三个令状,向沿海的居民征税,用于海军.(这样的情况在封建的中国可是很随便的事),可没有想到的是,一个叫JOHN HAMPDEN的人拒绝缴税.判决的结果是法官以7:5的比例支持了国王.
结果似乎不令人满意,可以后通过通过了SHIPMONEY ACT 1640,于是就创立了一个重要的原则"NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION".从法律上确认了通过这种方式课税是不合法的.

1.2 Independence of the jury (陪审团的独立性)
Judges must accept injuries’ verdicts on facts.
法官必须接受陪审团关于事实的判决.
1.3 Basic human rights (根本的人权)
1)Slavery is abhorrent to English common law. 奴隶制度是违反英国的普通法的
2)Pardon was granted for unfair trial and unsafe conviction.
赦免适用于不公正的审判和没有确切证据的定罪
这是一个很有意思的案子,一个叫BENTLEY的人被指控杀害了一个警察并在1953年被处以死刑.后来在1993年,他得到了王室的赦免,他已经早死了,可他的一个侄女提出上诉,因为在审判中,主肾法官给了不清楚的含有误道性的指令.这个警察实际是被BENTLEY的一个未成年同犯杀死的.但判决他的罪刑相同. 他侄女的上诉成功了,2001年法院作出了判决:即使在是当时的法律制度下,受到适当指示的陪审团有权判决他有罪,但法官的判决书中的很多漏洞导致了对他受到了不公平的判决.

在BENTLEY被处死刑后不久,英国1965年的谋杀法废除了死刑.而我们却还在大力提倡死刑.最高院更是把扩充了很多管死刑的法官,一批刚毕业的学生做了主管死刑的法官. 而现在很多国家都废除了死刑,我们却还在利用社会主义的特殊性大力推广死刑.国内一些民意更是一愤怒叫评论要让某些人去死.暴政出暴民呀,泯灭人性呀!

1.4Wartime restrictions on liberty (战时对人生自由的限制)
1)Interning a naturalized British subject of German origin was valid. 在二战时把德国在英国的财产国有化是合法的
2)House of Lords acceded to arbitrary executive behaviour.
上议院同意了军事行政行为

评分

参与人数 1铜板 +20 收起 理由
琴心剑胆 + 20 原创内容

查看全部评分

 楼主| 发表于 4/9/2011 05:49:47 | 显示全部楼层
学西方法律,看上去是懂了,等到翻译的时候就觉得好象又不全懂,献丑了.
发表于 4/10/2011 00:24:09 | 显示全部楼层
The King cannot arrest subjects or pass judgment in court. 国王不能扣留财产或不能影响法院审判;

可能应当译为“国王不得逮捕臣民或左右法院审判”更为合理。Subjects 在此文中应译为臣民。pass judgment 译为左右审判更合中文表述。
发表于 4/10/2011 00:27:54 | 显示全部楼层
"NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION".“没有代表,不缴税”;美国独立革命的理由之一正是此原则,当时美国殖民地在英国上议院和众议院均没有代表。
发表于 4/10/2011 00:34:42 | 显示全部楼层
Interning a naturalized British subject of German origin was valid. 在二战时把德国在英国的财产国有化是合法的

正确的译法是:扣留德裔归化英国臣民是合法有效的。
 楼主| 发表于 4/10/2011 04:38:19 | 显示全部楼层
多谢郭律师指教.深感翻译水平不够.
发表于 4/13/2011 11:11:31 | 显示全部楼层
回复 AIFAN 的帖子

"感想: 那是1607年,英国的司法独立性就体现出来了.不但体现了对人权的尊重,更为英国的后来的强大奠定了坚实的法律基础."
那么早就已经在搞并且认识到司法独立和对人权尊重的重要性了!! 太惊讶了! 难怪英国先进发达早,文明进步早这个世界太多了,我们落后太大了! 我一直在寻求这个答案,为什么英国、欧美(美国受英国影响是肯定的了)发展引领了世界的文明进步和现代化进程,而不是东方?中国文化自身似乎很难自身修正让社会发展进步。
谢谢你提供了这些知识。
发表于 4/13/2011 11:13:38 | 显示全部楼层
回复 郭国汀 的帖子

郭律师研究过英国司法独立的起源吗?
发表于 5/1/2011 19:44:50 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 5/1/2011 18:48 编辑
凌黎 发表于 4/13/2011 10:13
回复 郭国汀 的帖子

郭律师研究过英国司法独立的起源吗?

英国对人类社会最伟大的贡献是最早确立法治。法治当然包括司法独立,理论上提出司法独立者应当是古希腊的柏拉图和亚里士多德。1215年英国《大宪章》确立了对贵族的法治原则。司法独立的真正确立是在1615年以后。下文对法治的起源与历史作了较详细的归纳。


法治的起源与历史
郭国汀

有基督教法学者指出:“法治源于西方政治学和西方文明,东方历史上虽然也有法制,却没有法治精神。事实上法治起源于旧约,是由基督教推向世俗社会的”。[1]但他并未具体指出旧约中哪一条,也未明确基督教是如何将法治精神推向世俗社会的。亦有学者认为:“治并非西方文化的共同产物,而是英国本土的历史和法律实践的独特产物”。[2]还有学者主张,法律至上并非西方独有的概念。12世纪以前伊斯兰法学家便主张:任何官员包括哈里发(即最高当权者caliph)均不得超越法律。[3]不过完全意义上的法治源于西方文明,特别是英国历史和司法实践,则应属公论。

最早阐述法治原理的当属古希腊的伯拉图和亚里士多德。前者在其《共和国》(中译本为《理想国》但吾以为Republic应译为《共和国》才更贴切准确)中说:在法律受制于其它某种权力而非它自身的地方,国家的崩溃即为期不远了。但是如果法律是政府的主人及政府是法律的奴隶(政府完全受制于法律),那么情形就充满希望,人就能充分享受上帝对一个国家的保佑和祝福[4]他还论道:“在法律本身受制于或缺乏至上权威之所,我看到此处面临着破坏;但是在法律至高无上或统治者成为法律的奴隶之所,我预见到神赋予城市的安全和所有良好的事物”。[5]伯拉图在《论法律》中进一步指出:“人的统治或在政治社会中的人类至上应受到谴责,因为人性使得人拥有管理一切的专制独裁权力时,完全不能控制人类避免变成自高自大傲慢无礼和不公不义。”[6]拉图确认法治乃“人类内心某种不朽”的理性或理解之治。[7]

亚里士多德认同法治,他写道:法律应当统治,那些当权者应当成为法律的仆人[8]。古代的法治概念有别于法制(用法律统治),两者的区别在于:在法治下,法律是超群的卓越的,并可以起到制约权力滥用的作用;而在法制下,法律仅能作为政府的一种合法方式镇压的工具拉图的法治观在亚里士多德解释法治时有所反映:“命令法律应当统治的人,可以被视为命令只有上帝和理性应当管制;命令某个人应当统治的人,增加了兽类的性质。各种欲望(高级灵魂亦然)具有此类兽性,即便是最好的人的欲望,也会使任职高官者变。因此,法律可以定义为:排除所有情欲或愤恨的理性”。[9]亚里士多德认为法治的和稳定的宪政是最佳的政府,但此种宪政应当是建立在广大中产阶级基础上的宪政。但他从未有过三权分立相互制约平衡的概念[10]。亚氏之后,希腊罗马历史学家波里斯首次提出了政府机构分离的概念。他是介于亚氏与孟德斯鸠之间的人物。亚氏仅有阶级平衡的概念,即在富人与穷人之间要有一个盘大的中产阶级作为平衡。而孟氏则提出了完整的三权分立,限制政府权力,政府各部门之间制约平衡的政治设计[11]

归纳伯拉图和亚里士多德有关法治的论述,法治的基本精神与实质有:法律至上、法律应当统治、人治由于人性中的兽性最终必然导致不公不义专横跋扈、国王统治者和政府均须受制于法律、法律源于至高无上的上帝及人类理性、权力必须限制。

1215年《大宪章》中,英国约翰王将他自已和英国未来的王朝及地方法官均至少部分置于法治制约范围内。[12]约翰王向贵族男爵们承诺:“非经贵族根据英国法律经合法审判,任何自由人不得被监禁、拘捕、驱逐、或以任何方式毁灭、也不得施加任何强制”。亦即皇权受到了极大限制,除非经由贵族按照法律公开审理,国王不得任意处罚任何自由人也不得限制任何人的自由。Bracton法官大约在1250年在被视为英国法律第二份重要文件中重申“皇权必须按照法律行使。”[13]英王爱德华三世在1354年进一步规定:“任何人,无论其身份地位如何,非经正当法律程序,并经法庭审理质证,不得被驱除出境或解除雇佃、拘留、监禁、剥夺继承权、处死”[14]1608年爱德华库克大法官对詹姆斯一世说:他“不是根据人而是依据上帝和法律”判案。[15]吉姆斯哈林顿于1656年(查理一世被处死后)献给克伦威尔的《大洋国》中坚持:“法律的而非人的王国。”[16] 英国是君主,贵族和民主的权力混和的体制,这三种权力相互平衡制约,从而保障了英国自由的宪政长盛不衰[17]。孟氏发现在英国既没有政府机构之间的分权也没有社会阶级平衡,该国是由拥有土地的领主组成的充满腐败的议会部分行使管理职能。当然其立法与行政之间是分离的,但其分权未能超出司法独立的范围[18]。法治成为共同法(通译“普通法”,查布莱克法律词典原义,显然Common Law应译为共同法而非普通法)的基本原则。其最基本的形式即为法律面前的平等,公正和正义[19]

上述英国的司法实践确立了如下法治原则:法律至上、皇权受制于法律、自由人受法律同等保护、非经法院按既定法律和正当法律程序公开审理,任何人不得随意被限制人身自由剥夺财产。

近现代政治法律思想家奠定法治理论原则基础贡献最大者当属塞穆尔之《法论》(Samuel Rutherford in
Lex, Rex (1644) )约翰络克之《政府论》(1690)。随后,孟德斯鸠在其《论法的精神》(1748)中进一步确立了法治原则。[20]


约翰络克之分权制衡理论设计保障立法至上,将行政和司法置于其次地位,从而预期了依法治理:“在一个宪政国家,只能有一个至上的权力,即立法权,其它一切权力都必须置于其下,因为能为他人制定法律者,必须高于那些被法律约束的人”。[21]孟德斯鸠的话来说,“国家的法官们仅仅是宣读法律词汇的口,仅是被动使之不能节制法律的暴力或严厉”。[22]上述政治法律思想家最大的历史功绩在于确于了三权分立分权制衡的政治法律原则,使法治原则从理论变成了司法现实。孟氏对平衡政府理论的独创性的贡献在于他将三权严格分离[23]。法国大革命的法律理论认为:所有的法律都是立法者的意志,习惯法和司法解释同样被拒绝。法官仅是司法机器上的狭孔,通过类似数学公式那样的一种自动计算机将法律文本适用于判决。[24]

司法独立并非自始有之。英国大约是1616年正式确立独立司法,普鲁士(德国)在1749年首次提出司法独立原则。[25]1776年在缔造美国的过程中,任何人均不得超越法律之上的概念得以流行,例如,托马斯潘恩在《常识》中称:在美国法律就是国王。因为在一个绝对的政府中国王就是法律,因此,在自由的国家中,法律应当是国王;且不应当有任何其它更高的权威。1780年美国第二任总统约翰亚当斯在马萨诸色州宪法中建议:“在马州政府中立法、行政和司法权应当分置于不同的部门,旨在由法律而非由人统治。”[26]

律的统治(ruleof law法治)一词是19世纪后半叶由英国牛津大学资深法学教授戴西使之流行的。[27]“西欧和北美取得的法治成就,付出过巨大的牺牲和代价,包括战争和革命,历经数个世纪,并非在几个月内或数年内成就”。[28]那些强调文明在构建世界秩序的作用的理论家们认为,“法治是西方独特的产物而不能被出口”。[29]

当代西方正宗自由宪政民主国家,均早已建立完善的法治。由于法律至上,法律普遍平等适用于一切公民,总统、政府与官员同样受同等法律制约,从而“法律面前人人平等”,同时在社会、信仰、政治、经济、文化、教育、文娱体育诸方面均做到人人机会均等成为可能。为创造一个相对公平公正公道的社会,一个人人自由、平等、友善、正义抑强扶弱的和谐社会奠定了坚实的法律基础,个人权利则获得法律的充分保障。经过三波全球民主化,世界上已有130余个国家实现了选举民主政治。后起的民主国家中,由于法治原则在某些国家仍未确立或不完善,这是少数已实现选举民主制的国家仍然存在司法严重不公政治腐败的重要原因之一。至于中共匪帮骗子国,由于党控一切的极权独裁专制流氓暴政横行霸道,极端自私自利的犯罪既得利益当权集团的顽固不化,与人民为敌的中共视法治为虎,始终依凭党卫军,及公、检、法、司、警、特、监狱等国家暴力机器,对全民实行暴力、谎言、恐怖统治,长期实行严厉党禁、报禁、言禁、网禁,使得中共国根本不存在独立司法,独立媒体,独立政治实体,因而根本没有法治生存的余地,由于中共一贯残酷迫害一切民主志士仁人,六十年强暴国人精神意志,长期强行对全体国人进行洗脑愚民,导致众多民众特别是官员们普遍道德堕落、人心败坏、素质低劣,因此,中共暴政下,政治、司法、社会全面腐败腐烂堕落是必然的。

唯有及时尽早茶彻底终结中共极权专制流氓暴政,才能避免中华民族被流氓中共毁灭的巨大危险,才能挽救中国的自然生态环境,才能拯救中国堕落的道德人心,中国才可能有美好的明天与光明的未来,中国人民才能真正走上自由人权法治宪政共和民主的光辉大道。每个真正爱华的中国人,每个中华儿女应当早日认清中共流氓暴政的邪恶本质,尽早唾弃早已病入膏肓无可救药的中共流氓暴政,积极投身于彻底终结中共极权专制流氓暴政这一人类历史上最伟大的政治革命,为建设一个真正自由人权法治宪政共和民主新中国而共同努力奋斗。

2009111日第191个反中共极权专制暴政争自由人权民主绝食争权抗暴民权运动日






[1]The idea of the rule of law (regulations) and not the manwas proclaimed in the Western European legal and political theory a long timebefore the idea of democracy came into picture. In fact, the idea of the ruleof law was taken over from Old Testament, and the thought became incorporatedinto the Western civilization through Christianity.

[2]The Rule of Law wasnot a cultural attribute common to the West, but rather it was local toEngland, a distinctive product of English history and legal institutions.

[3]The supremacy of law is not an exclusively western notion.For example, it was developed by Islamic jurists before the twelfth century, sothat no official could claim to be above the law, not even the caliph.

[4]Where the law is subject to some other authority and hasnone of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but iflaw is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then thesituation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the godsshower on a state.

[5] Laws IV 715d at 102. Where the law is itself ruled over and lacks sovereignauthority, I see destruction at hand for such a place. But where it is despotover the rulers and the rulers are slaves of the law, there I foresee safetyand all good things which the gods have given to cities

[6]Plato Laws IV 713c, The Laws of Plato. trans. Thomas L.Pangle Whicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) at 99. And see Laws IX,875a-876a. In Plato's Lawspersonal rule or the supremacy of human beings in the political community iscondemned because "human nature is not at all capable of regulating thehuman things, when it possesses autocratic authority over everything, withoutbecoming swollen with insolence and injustice

[7]"...in public life and in private life-in thearrangement of our households and our cities
shouldobey whatever within us partakes of immortality, giving the name *law' to thedistribution ordained by intelligence." Laws IV 714a at 100. Plato identifies the rule oflaw with the rule of reason or understanding--"whatever within us partakesof immortality.

[8]Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that"law should govern", and those in power should be "servants ofthe laws." The ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished fromrule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "Thedifference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serveas a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve asa mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."

[9]Aristotle, Politics In, 1287a in The Politics of Aristotle.trans. Ernest Barker (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962) at 146. Barkerpoints out in a note that Aristotle here uses the language of Plato's Republicfor the paris of the soul. Plato's voice can be heard in Aristotle's account of the ruleof law: "He who commands that law should rule may thus be regarded ascommanding that God and reason alone should rule; he who commands that a manshould rule adds the character of the beast. Appetite has that character, andhigh spirit, too, perverts the holders of office, even when they are the bestof men. Law ...may thus be defined as 'Reason free from all passion'

[10] For Aristotle the touchstones of good government are rule by law(so far as consistent with equity and administrative flexibility to cope withunforeseen situations) and constitutional stability. (6/26)

[11] there originates with Polybius the constitution of checking andbalancing organs (not functions as yet). (6/26)

[12]In 1215 AD, a similar development occurred in England: KingJohn placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates at leastpartially within the rule of law, by signing Magna Carta.O. John Rogge * of the New York Bar (New York City).O. John Rogge The,Rule ofLaw, 46 A.B.A. J.(1960)pages 981 to 986

[13] F. 5b. In 1215 in Magna Charta, KingJohn promised his barons at Runnymede: "No freeman shall be takenor imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we goupon him, nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or [perlegem terrae] by the law of the land." Bracton in his Tratatus de legibus,the second great treatise on English law, the main part of which was probablywritten between
1250-58, stated that theroyal powershould be exercised subjectto the law

[14]28Edw. 3. c. 3 (1354). Edward III (1327-77), in addition tohis frequent confirmations of Magna Charta, in 1354 further provided "that no man of what estate orcondition that he be, shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, norimprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer[par due proces de lei] by due process of law

[15]Edward Coke in his famous Sunday morning conference (1608)with James I of England quoted himself as saying, attributing them to Bracton,NON SUB HOMINE SED SUB DEO ET LEGE [not under man but under God and the law].Bracton was an English judge and writer who died in 1268.

[16]At 27 (Morley ed. 1887). JamesHarrington in his The Commonwealth of Oceana, published in 1656 afterthe execution of Charles I and dedicated to Oliver Cromwell, insisted on "an empire of laws, and not of men

[17] It is by this mixture of monarchical, aristocratical, anddemocratical power, blended together in one system, and by these three estatesbalancing one another, that our free constitution of government hath beenpreserved so long inviolate. (6/26)

[18] In England, where Montesquieu professed having found thedoctrine in operation, there existed neither a separation of government organsnor a balance of social classes. The country was ruled, partly through a systemof pervasive parliamentary corruption, by an oligarchy of land- owning peers.There was, to be sure, a distinction of functions between legislation, on theone hand, and executive action under the residues of the royal prerogative, onthe other. A separation of powers, however, did not go farther than theindependence of the judges, guaranteed by the Act of Settlement (1700). (6/26)

[19] the rule of law become a fundamental principle of the commonlaw. in its most basic form the rule of law means eauality, fairness, andjustice before the law. By Barrie J.Saxton & Ronald T.Stansfield,Understanding Criminal Offences, Carswell 1996.P.3. (6/22)

[20]Subsequently, two of the first modern authors to give theprinciple theoretical foundations were Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex (1644) andJohn Locke in his Second Treatise of Government (1690). Later, the principlewas further entrenched by Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748).


[21]Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, ch. 12 §§ 149-50 (1685).)His separationof functions is plainly designed to guarantee the supremacy of the legislative,the rigorous sub- ordination of administration and judging, and hencepredictable rule by law: “In a Constituted Commonwealth . . . there can be butone Supreme Power, which is the Legislative, -to which all the rest are andmust be subordinate... For what can give Laws to another, must needs besuperior to him.”

[22] InMontesquieu's words, "The national judges are no more than the mouth thatpronounces the words of the law, mere passive beings incapable of moderatingeither its force or rigor.11 Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois 6 (1748). Almostidentically, see Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Osborn v. Bank of theUnited States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 866 (1824).

[23] The only innovation he contributed to the mixed-governmentdoctrine lies in the nature of the governmental balance, it is his rigidseparation of the three powers, coupled with the unwarranted implication inwhich it is necessary for organs (powers) and functions to coincide. (6/26)

[24] the legal doctrine of the French Revolution. All law islegislative will. Customary law and judicial interpretation alike are rejected.The judge becomes a "juridical slot machine," a "subsumptionautomaton" calculating decisions from the legal texts by means ofmathematic-like formulae. (7/1)

[25]The first steps toward judicial independence in Prussia weretaken in the Judiciary Act (Justizressortreglement) of 1749, fathered by thenatural law jurist, Samuel von Cocceji.

[26]4 Charles Francis Adams The Works Of JOHN Adams 230 (1851).In the next century John Adams,
in his The Report of a Constitution, or Formof Government, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, proposed: "In the government of theCommonwealth of Massachusetts, the legislative, executive and judicial powershall be placed in separate departments, Lo the end that it might be agovernment of laws, and not of men。
In 1776, thenotion that no one is above the law was popular during the founding of theUnited States, for example in the pamphlet Common Sense by Thomas Paine:"in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king islaw, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be noother." In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the MassachusettsConstitution by seeking to establish "a government of laws and not ofmen." (6/30)

[27]the specific phrase "the Rule of Law" was firstpopularized only in the last half of the nineteenth century by A.V. Dicey, Vinerian Professor of English law at Oxfordfrom 1882 to 1909.

[28]Samuel P. HuntingtonThe Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order , 68-72 (1996). theorists who emphasize therole of civilizations in shaping world order suggest that the Rule of Law isuniquely Western and that it may not be "for export.

[29]Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations and theRemaking of World Order ,68-72 (1996).



您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则


站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
道至大 道天成

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

GMT-5, 8/18/2018 13:35 , Processed in 0.148627 second(s), 15 queries , Gzip On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表