Legal Reasoning in Economic and Social Rights Cases

经济和社会权利案件中的法律推理

• 批准号: AH/F00558X/1
• 负责人: Holly Cullen
• 金额: $ 2.75万
• 依托单位: Durham University
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2008
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2008 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FF00558X%2F1
• 关键词: Legal; Reasoning; Economic; Social; Rights

In 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council decided to draft an Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to provide a right of individual petition. The debates surrounding this question have been often largely taken up with the question of whether economic and social rights are capable of being adjudicated in contentious procedures, rather than being implemented exclusively through state reporting procedures. This debate has obscured the examples of systems, both at the international level and under national constitutions, where an economic and social rights jurisprudence is being developed. In the literature on justiciability, legitimate difficulties in adjudicating economic and social rights in contentious cases have been identified: the issue of resources; difficulties in setting the appropriate standard to be met by states; the need to balance individual against collective interests. Nonetheless, in practice these difficulties are overcome, or at least mitigated.While attempts have been made to distil the principles relating to the implementation of economic and social rights, these have largely been developed in the context of international monitoring bodies whose main or exclusive role is the review of state reports. These include the General Comments by the Committee implementing the ICESCR, reviews of practice by the European Committee on Social Rights which monitors the implementation of the European Social Charter and the Limburg and Maastricht Principles on the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. These principles are not entirely appropriate for contentious cases.In systems where economic and social rights have been made justiciable, the justiciability debate has become irrelevant. It is instead necessary to identify the principles used in the practice of courts and international human rights monitoring bodies which are dealing with economic and social rights cases. This can be done through a detailed analysis of the case law of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies which apply economic and social rights. Notable amongst these are the European Committee of Social Rights applying the European Social Charter and the South African courts, particularly the Constitutional Court, applying the South African Constitution, which includes economic and social rights. In addition, some limited application of economic and social rights is achieved through the use of generalised non-discrimination provisions in constitutions and international human rights instruments.The principles being applied can be divided into two types: the values being protected, which include human dignity and equality and the assessment of the acceptable degree of state interference, including adapted versions of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality. In economic and social rights cases it is also necessary for courts to define the limits of state discretion in expending resources in these areas.This project will be of interest to legal academics and practitioners in a range of areas: human rights, international organisations and comparative constitutional law. In addition, human rights specialists outside the legal field will find questions of the principles of applying human rights important to an understanding of the nature of economic and social rights. The realisation of economic and social rights will also be of interest to development studies specialists and those involved with social policy.The main academic output from this project will be a book-length evaluation of the principles of adjudication concerning economic and social rights. In addition, two or possibly three articles will be produced: from the two main case studies of application of economic and social rights (Council of Europe; South Africa), and from the analysis of using discrimination rules to realise economic and social rights.

2006年，联合国人权理事会决定起草《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约任择议定书》，规定个人请愿权。围绕这一问题的辩论往往主要涉及经济和社会权利是否能够在诉讼程序中得到裁决，而不是完全通过国家报告程序得到落实的问题。这一辩论掩盖了国际一级和国家宪法下正在发展经济和社会权利判例的制度的例子。在关于可由法院审理的问题的文献中，已经确定了在有争议的案件中对经济和社会权利作出裁决的合法困难：资源问题;在确定国家应达到的适当标准方面的困难;平衡个人利益和集体利益的必要性。尽管如此，在实践中，这些困难都被克服了，或者至少减轻了，虽然已经作出了努力，以确定与落实经济和社会权利有关的原则，但这些原则主要是在国际监督机构的范围内制定的，这些机构的主要或专门作用是审查国家报告。其中包括执行《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》委员会的一般性意见、监测《欧洲社会宪章》执行情况的欧洲社会权利委员会的做法审查以及关于执行经济、社会和文化权利的林布尔格和马斯特里赫特原则。这些原则并不完全适用于有争议的案件，在经济和社会权利可由法院审理的制度中，是否可由法院审理的辩论已变得无关紧要。相反，有必要确定处理经济和社会权利案件的法院和国际人权监督机构在实践中使用的原则。这可以通过详细分析适用经济和社会权利的司法和准司法机构的判例法来实现。其中值得注意的是，欧洲社会权利委员会适用《欧洲社会宪章》，南非法院，特别是宪法法院适用《南非宪法》，其中包括经济和社会权利。此外，通过在宪法和国际人权文书中使用一般性的不歧视条款，在一定程度上实现了经济和社会权利的有限适用。受到保护的价值观，包括人的尊严和平等，以及评估国家干预的可接受程度，包括合理性和相称性原则的变通版本。在经济和社会权利案件中，法院也有必要确定国家在这些领域花费资源的酌处权的限度。这个项目将使人权、国际组织和比较宪法等一系列领域的法律的学者和实践者感兴趣。此外，法律的领域以外的人权专家会发现，适用人权的原则问题对于理解经济和社会权利的性质十分重要。实现经济和社会权利也将引起发展研究专家和社会政策参与者的兴趣，这一项目的主要学术成果将是对有关经济和社会权利的裁决原则的一本书的评价。此外，还将编写两篇或可能三篇文章：关于经济和社会权利适用情况的两个主要案例研究（欧洲理事会;南非），以及关于利用歧视规则实现经济和社会权利的分析。