Law and Politics
Law and Politics
复制标题
法律与政治
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1996
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
David M. Beatty
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David M. Beatty
在我们接近二十世纪结束之际，人们再次以新的活力辩论一个社会是否应将权利法案纳入其宪法的问题。一方面，在世界各地-在东欧、非洲和亚洲-随着新国家前所未有地从独裁和专制政权中涌现出来，人们坚持要求政府和国家官员尊重他们的基本人权。保障基本人权被广泛认为是现代宪法的一个基本要素，至少在一般民众中是这样。另一方面，在许多国家，包括一些权利法案已经确立了很长一段时间的国家，有一种普遍的感觉，特别是在专业人士-律师、哲学家和政治学家-中，认为在法庭上保护人权本质上是不民主的。人民主权和司法审查被视为不一致和不稳定。“司法政治”、“民主与不信任”、“政治的合法化”是描述这种紧张关系的一些方式。当权利的言论“在街头”流行时，在学术界，它们的完整性却受到了围攻。正如人们所预料的那样，关于宪法权利的利弊的辩论也在法院进行。法官们敏锐地意识到问题的两个方面。在特定的法庭内，辩论可以相当公开地进行。例如，在美国最高法院，保守派和“严格”派之间的分歧
As we approach the end of the twentieth century the question whether a society should entrench a bill of rights into its constitution is being debated with renewed vigour once again. On the one hand, all over the world-in eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia,-as an unprecedented proliferation of new states emerge from dictatorial and authoritarian regimes, people are insisting that their basic human rights be respected by Governments and state officials. Guaranteeing basic human rights is widely perceived, among the general population at least, to be an essential element of a modern constitution. On the other hand, in many countries, including some where bills of rights have been entrenched for a long period of time, there is a widespread feeling, especially among the professionals-lawyers, philosophers and political scientiststhat protecting human rights in the courts is inherently undemocratic. Popular sovereignty and judicial review are perceived as being inconsistent and unstable. "Judicial Politics",1 "Democracy and Distrust",2 "The Legalization of Politics"3 are some of the ways the tension has been described. While the rhetoric of rights flourishes "on the street", in the academy their integrity is under seige. As would be expected, this debate about the pros and cons of constitutional rights has also been carried on in the courts. Judges are acutely aware of both sides of the issue. Within particular courts the debate can be carried on quite openly. The division in the United States Supreme Court, for example, between the conservative, "strict