本文選題：個(gè)人申訴 + 人權(quán)法院��； 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：現(xiàn)代國(guó)家中,保障人權(quán)已經(jīng)成為一項(xiàng)國(guó)際共識(shí),對(duì)人權(quán)的保護(hù)不僅僅是國(guó)內(nèi)法的重要內(nèi)容,是衡量一個(gè)國(guó)家法制完善與否的重要標(biāo)志,是衡量一個(gè)國(guó)家是否實(shí)行法治的重要衡量手段：而且是國(guó)際法的重要內(nèi)容,而且相對(duì)于國(guó)內(nèi)法對(duì)人權(quán)保護(hù)的不完善的現(xiàn)狀相比,國(guó)際法尤其是區(qū)域法的步伐更為快一些。歐洲是人權(quán)思想的發(fā)源地,自古以來(lái)就一直有保護(hù)人權(quán)的傳統(tǒng)與實(shí)踐。而與此同時(shí),兩次世界大戰(zhàn)都策源于歐洲,兩次世界大戰(zhàn)的教訓(xùn)也促使人們認(rèn)識(shí)到,只有保護(hù)人權(quán),抑制專制與獨(dú)裁,才能保持長(zhǎng)久的和平與安定。二戰(zhàn)后不久,在丘吉爾的號(hào)召下,西歐的戰(zhàn)勝國(guó)便建立了泛歐洲組織,1948年建立了歐洲理事會(huì),并起草了《歐洲人權(quán)公約》,公約于1950年生效。根據(jù)歐洲人權(quán)公約建立了兩個(gè)人權(quán)保護(hù)的執(zhí)行機(jī)構(gòu),即歐洲人權(quán)委員會(huì)與歐洲人權(quán)法院。歐洲人權(quán)法院從建立到現(xiàn)在的日臻成熟階段,經(jīng)歷了以下幾個(gè)發(fā)展階段：首先是建立初期,歐洲人權(quán)法院于1959年建立,歐洲人權(quán)法院建立后,在人權(quán)的保護(hù)方面發(fā)揮了不可替代的作用,但由于第一是到歐洲人權(quán)法院申訴的增長(zhǎng)使得案件的處理速度非常慢；締約國(guó)的增加使得這個(gè)問(wèn)題變得更加嚴(yán)峻；第二是歐洲人權(quán)法院和歐洲人權(quán)委員會(huì)的非常設(shè)性與在審理程序上的重復(fù)導(dǎo)致審理速度緩慢；第三是成員國(guó)希望公約的監(jiān)督機(jī)構(gòu)更具有獨(dú)立的司法機(jī)構(gòu)的性質(zhì)；第四是改善個(gè)人申訴的處境。于是1998年歐洲人權(quán)法院經(jīng)過(guò)改革進(jìn)入了新的階段,也就是它的第二個(gè)階段,經(jīng)過(guò)改革,歐洲人權(quán)法院在以下幾個(gè)方面實(shí)現(xiàn)了突破：首先,也是最主要的,是關(guān)于個(gè)人方面的,個(gè)人有權(quán)直接提出申訴,而無(wú)需有關(guān)成員國(guó)聲明接受。通過(guò)這一改革,使得個(gè)人的人權(quán)申訴現(xiàn)狀得以較大改善。因?yàn)樗o與個(gè)人以完全的訴權(quán),從而也使得人權(quán)法院成為名副其實(shí)的保護(hù)人權(quán)的機(jī)構(gòu)；其次是法院由臨時(shí)性變?yōu)槌ＴO(shè)性的,因而有助于案件的快速高效率的審理；第三是控制體系的三合為一,完全司法化。改革撤銷(xiāo)了委員會(huì),并取消了部長(zhǎng)委員會(huì)在決定案件方面的權(quán)力,將其限定為監(jiān)督法院判決的執(zhí)行。設(shè)立由常設(shè)法官組成的、由法官助理協(xié)助的唯一的常設(shè)法院。然而1998年的改革在人權(quán)法院實(shí)施了6年之后仍然有許多難以克服的問(wèn)題,其中加強(qiáng)國(guó)內(nèi)救濟(jì)以減少案件的數(shù)量以及如何能夠更快捷的篩選案件以及處理案件等問(wèn)題亟待解救,于是在多方的呼聲下,2004年歐洲人權(quán)法院進(jìn)行了第二次改革,雖然歐洲人權(quán)法院經(jīng)過(guò)兩次改革已經(jīng)取得了長(zhǎng)足的進(jìn)步,但是仍然存在著這樣那樣的的問(wèn)題,最突出的問(wèn)題便是案件的積壓?jiǎn)栴}仍然很突出,但是,盡管如此,歐洲人權(quán)法院的模式對(duì)于各國(guó)人民更好的保護(hù)自己的人權(quán)有著重要的作用,對(duì)于人權(quán)現(xiàn)狀較為一般的中國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō),更具有價(jià)值和意義；仿照歐洲人權(quán)法院的模型,現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)建立了非洲人權(quán)法院與美洲人權(quán)法院,有學(xué)者建議,亞洲人權(quán)法院的建立也應(yīng)該指日可待,那么在建立亞洲人權(quán)法院的時(shí)候,歐洲人權(quán)法院,尤其是歐洲人權(quán)法院中的個(gè)人申訴機(jī)制對(duì)于我們?nèi)蘸蠼喼奕藱?quán)法院以及亞洲人權(quán)法院的個(gè)人申訴機(jī)制更具有參考價(jià)值與借鑒意義!
[Abstract]:In modern countries, the protection of human rights has become an international consensus. The protection of human rights is not only an important part of domestic law, but also an important symbol to measure the perfection of a country's legal system. It is an important measure to measure the rule of law in a country. It is also an important content of international law and is relative to human rights in domestic law. In comparison with the imperfect situation of protection, the pace of international law, especially the regional law, is more rapid. Europe is the birthplace of human rights ideas, and since ancient times there has been a tradition and practice of protecting human rights. At the same time, the two world war has been rooted in Europe, and the lessons of the two world war have also prompted people to realize that only the protection of human rights is known. Under the call of Churchill, the European Council established the European Council in 1948, and the European Convention on human rights was drafted and the Convention entered into force in 1950. Two executive machines for the protection of human rights were established in accordance with the European Convention on human rights. The European Human Rights Court (European Human Rights Commission) and the European Court of human rights (European Court of human rights) have experienced the following stages of development from the establishment of the European Court of human rights to the present. First, the European Court of human rights was established in 1959. After the establishment of the European Court of human rights, the European Court of human rights has played an irreplaceable role in the protection of human rights, but it is the first one. The increase in the appeal of the European Court of human rights has made the handling of the case very slow; the increase in the State Party has made the problem more serious; second is the very low speed of the European human rights court and the European Commission on human rights in the trial procedure; and the third is that member states want the supervision of the Convention. The organization has a more independent nature of the judiciary; fourth is to improve the situation of individual complaints. In 1998, the European Court of human rights entered a new stage, that is, its second stages. After the reform, the European Court of human rights has achieved breakthroughs in the following aspects: first, and most important, on the individual aspects. The individual has the right to direct a complaint directly without the need for a declaration by the member states. Through this reform, the individual's human rights appeal has been greatly improved, because it gives the individual a complete litigious right and makes the court of human rights a real institution for the protection of human rights; secondly, the court has changed from temporary to permanent nature. As a result, it contributes to the quick and efficient trial of the case; third is the three of the control system and the complete judicature. The reform revoked the Committee and abolished the authority of the Council of ministers to determine the case, and limited it to the enforcement of the court's judgment. The Permanent Court of justice. However, the 1998 reform still has many unconquered problems after the implementation of the human rights court for 6 years. The issue of strengthening domestic relief to reduce the number of cases and how to be able to screen cases and deal with cases is urgently needed to be saved. In many cases, the European Court of human rights in 2004 has carried out in the voice of the European Court of human rights. In the second reform, although the European Court of human rights has made great progress after two reforms, the problem still exists, and the most prominent problem is that the backlog of cases is still outstanding, however, the model of the European Court of human rights is better for the people of all countries to protect their human rights. The important role is of greater value and significance for China, which is more common to the human rights situation. Following the model of the European Court of human rights, the African human rights court and the American court of human rights have now been established, and some scholars suggest that the establishment of the Asian court of human rights should also be available, and then, when the Asian human rights court is established, Europe will be established. The personal appeal mechanism of the human rights court, especially the European Court of human rights, has more reference value and reference for the establishment of the individual appeals mechanism of the Asian human rights court and the Asian human rights court in the future.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D998.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 畢道俊;;試論人權(quán)公約中的締約國(guó)報(bào)告程序[J];安慶師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年05期

2 張學(xué)哲;;歐洲法院在歐洲一體化中的作用——對(duì)歐洲法院有關(guān)公司法裁決的分析[J];比較法研究;2008年01期

3 賀鑒;論歐洲人權(quán)保護(hù)中的個(gè)人申訴制度及其對(duì)非洲的借鑒作用[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年01期

4 尹雪梅;;歐洲人權(quán)法院——超國(guó)家的人權(quán)保護(hù)法律機(jī)構(gòu)[J];中國(guó)司法;2006年07期

5 馬桂瑛;;聯(lián)合國(guó)人權(quán)機(jī)構(gòu)改革之淺見(jiàn)——對(duì)人權(quán)理事會(huì)和人權(quán)委員會(huì)的比較分析[J];西華師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年06期

6 李晶珠,王偉,趙海峰;非洲人權(quán)與民族權(quán)法院 國(guó)際人權(quán)保護(hù)體制的新篇章[J];法律適用;2005年06期

7 趙海峰;竇玉前;;保護(hù)人權(quán)與提高效率的平衡 歐洲人權(quán)法院2004年改革評(píng)析[J];法律適用;2006年Z1期

8 張英;論歐洲法院的初步裁決程序[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2001年04期

9 黎爾平;國(guó)際人權(quán)保護(hù)機(jī)制的構(gòu)成及發(fā)展趨勢(shì)[J];法商研究;2005年05期

10 洪永紅,賀鑒;非洲人權(quán)法院對(duì)歐美人權(quán)法院的借鑒——個(gè)體和非政府組織參與人權(quán)訴訟[J];法學(xué)雜志;2002年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前5條

1 英國(guó)埃塞克斯大學(xué)人權(quán)法中心研究員 Wim Muller邋中國(guó)人民大學(xué)博士生 劉中琦 譯;[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

2 李永君;[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

3 李永君;[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

4 范思泓;[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

5 張 華;[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 張蕾;歐洲聯(lián)盟的法律淵源及其效力原則研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

2 涂平一;人權(quán)國(guó)際保護(hù)制度的發(fā)展與實(shí)踐[D];大連海事大學(xué);2000年

3 唐伯軍;論歐洲人權(quán)司法機(jī)制下的用盡當(dāng)?shù)鼐葷?jì)規(guī)則[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2003年

4 賀鑒;區(qū)域性人權(quán)保護(hù)研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2003年

5 李卓婭;歐洲人權(quán)法及其理論思考[D];西南政法大學(xué);2005年

6 曹陽(yáng);歐洲人權(quán)法院判例法中的公正審判[D];四川大學(xué);2005年

7 姜鐵敬;國(guó)際人權(quán)兩公約與我國(guó)憲法的比較研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2003年

8 孫立格;論歐洲法院的管轄權(quán)及其獨(dú)特性[D];河北師范大學(xué);2006年

9 王東;人權(quán)國(guó)際保護(hù)的概念及實(shí)施途徑[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2006年

10 陳荔;聯(lián)合國(guó)人權(quán)理事會(huì)研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1801865