國際人權(quán)法視角下的蒙面禁令研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-11-15 20:51
【摘要】：在反對恐怖主義與保障人權(quán)的背景下,當(dāng)前世界已有不少國家通過了禁止在公共場所穿戴蒙面罩袍的禁令。隨著美國、歐洲不斷激化的"穆斯林化"與"去穆斯林化",伊斯蘭蒙面罩袍問題在世界范圍內(nèi)的討論再次升溫。本文主要內(nèi)容分為三章,第一章對反對恐怖主義情勢下各國出臺的蒙面禁令進行了梳理,并對"蒙面禁令"進行了界定。本文認為,對于蒙面禁令的界定,重點在于"蒙面"涉及的蒙面罩袍或蒙面面紗的定義。鑒于各國立法中,逐漸淡化"蒙面面紗"的宗教性、傾向偏于中立的表述是一個趨勢,加之為了避免變相將法案變成只針對穆斯林的禁令。本文將"蒙面面紗"定義為中性的、覆蓋住人身體和面部的蒙面罩袍,而不專指穆斯林面紗和長袍;同時在條文中補充規(guī)定,其他宣揚宗教極端思想的服飾、佩戴或者使用徽章、器物、紀(jì)念品和標(biāo)識同樣禁止。這兩點共同構(gòu)成了對"蒙面禁令"的界定。第二章從理論上研究了蒙面禁令與國際人權(quán)保障的關(guān)系,在討論了蒙面禁令引發(fā)的"侵犯人權(quán)說"與"保障人權(quán)說"兩方對立觀點之后,提出蒙面禁令是利于保障人權(quán)的。并從《世界人權(quán)宣言》、《經(jīng)濟、社會及文化權(quán)利國際公約》、《公民權(quán)利與政治權(quán)利國際公約》、《歐洲人權(quán)公約》等國際公約出發(fā),從國際人權(quán)法上"權(quán)利克減"的理論角度,論證蒙面禁令可構(gòu)成國際人權(quán)法中的權(quán)利克減,以及蒙面禁令構(gòu)成權(quán)利克減的條件。第三章從實踐上討論了蒙面禁令的實施應(yīng)當(dāng)約束于怎樣的國際人權(quán)保障準(zhǔn)則,以不侵犯公民權(quán)利,并不被濫用。具體地,首先,從對歐洲人權(quán)法院等國外司法案例的解析中得出,蒙面禁令的合理適用至少須滿足兩個條件:(1)其實施具有明確法律依據(jù);(2)其對權(quán)利的限制是為正當(dāng)目的;其次,對中國已有的關(guān)于蒙面禁令的立法實踐的特色與不足進行了點評,分析了當(dāng)前立法具有的里程碑式意義,及有待完善的方面。
[Abstract]:Against the background of terrorism and the protection of human rights, many countries in the world have passed a ban on wearing masked robes in public places. With the growing "Muslim" and "deMuslim" of Europe in the United States, the issue of Islamic masked burqas has heated up around the world. The main content of this paper is divided into three chapters. The first chapter combs the masked ban issued by various countries under the situation of terrorism, and defines the masked prohibition. This paper holds that the definition of masked ban focuses on the definition of masked gowns or veils. Given the tendency in national legislation to downplay the religious nature of the "veil of the face", a tendency to be neutral, and to avoid making the bill a ban on Muslims in disguise. In this paper, the "veil of face" is defined as neutral, covering the human body and face, not the Muslim veil and robe; It also adds that other clothing that propagandizes religious extremism, the wearing or use of badges, implements, souvenirs and signs are also prohibited. These two points together constitute the definition of "masked ban". The second chapter theoretically studies the relationship between masked prohibition and international human rights protection. After discussing the opposing viewpoints of "violation of human rights" and "protection of human rights" caused by masked ban, the author puts forward that masked prohibition is beneficial to the protection of human rights. Proceeding from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, From the theoretical point of view of "derogation of rights" in international human rights law, it is demonstrated that masked prohibition can constitute derogation of rights in international human rights law, and the condition that masked prohibition constitutes derogation of rights. The third chapter discusses in practice what kind of international human rights guarantee standards should be bound to the implementation of masked prohibition so as not to violate civil rights and not be abused. Specifically, first of all, from the analysis of foreign judicial cases, such as the European Court of Human Rights, it is concluded that the reasonable application of masked injunctions must satisfy at least two conditions: (1) its implementation has a clear legal basis; (2) the restriction of rights is a legitimate purpose; secondly, the characteristics and deficiencies of the existing legislative practice on masked prohibition in China are reviewed, and the milestone significance of current legislation is analyzed, and the aspects to be improved are analyzed.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D998.2
本文編號：2334423
[Abstract]:Against the background of terrorism and the protection of human rights, many countries in the world have passed a ban on wearing masked robes in public places. With the growing "Muslim" and "deMuslim" of Europe in the United States, the issue of Islamic masked burqas has heated up around the world. The main content of this paper is divided into three chapters. The first chapter combs the masked ban issued by various countries under the situation of terrorism, and defines the masked prohibition. This paper holds that the definition of masked ban focuses on the definition of masked gowns or veils. Given the tendency in national legislation to downplay the religious nature of the "veil of the face", a tendency to be neutral, and to avoid making the bill a ban on Muslims in disguise. In this paper, the "veil of face" is defined as neutral, covering the human body and face, not the Muslim veil and robe; It also adds that other clothing that propagandizes religious extremism, the wearing or use of badges, implements, souvenirs and signs are also prohibited. These two points together constitute the definition of "masked ban". The second chapter theoretically studies the relationship between masked prohibition and international human rights protection. After discussing the opposing viewpoints of "violation of human rights" and "protection of human rights" caused by masked ban, the author puts forward that masked prohibition is beneficial to the protection of human rights. Proceeding from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, From the theoretical point of view of "derogation of rights" in international human rights law, it is demonstrated that masked prohibition can constitute derogation of rights in international human rights law, and the condition that masked prohibition constitutes derogation of rights. The third chapter discusses in practice what kind of international human rights guarantee standards should be bound to the implementation of masked prohibition so as not to violate civil rights and not be abused. Specifically, first of all, from the analysis of foreign judicial cases, such as the European Court of Human Rights, it is concluded that the reasonable application of masked injunctions must satisfy at least two conditions: (1) its implementation has a clear legal basis; (2) the restriction of rights is a legitimate purpose; secondly, the characteristics and deficiencies of the existing legislative practice on masked prohibition in China are reviewed, and the milestone significance of current legislation is analyzed, and the aspects to be improved are analyzed.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D998.2
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 毛俊響;;禁止在公眾場所穿戴蒙面罩袍的法理思考——基于S.A.S.v France案的啟示[J];長沙理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2017年01期
2 郭蓓;;我國首個“罩袍禁令”適用評析[J];新疆社科論壇;2015年02期
3 王磊;;當(dāng)前新疆“穆斯林婦女蒙面問題”的審視與對策[J];新疆社會科學(xué);2015年01期
4 鮑佳佳;王晨光;;“世俗化”與法治的概念:法國《禁止在公共場所穿遮面長袍》新法案的討論[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年08期
5 龔刃韌;;不可克減的權(quán)利與習(xí)慣法規(guī)則[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2010年01期
6 滕宏慶;;論人權(quán)克減及其監(jiān)督機制[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年02期
7 魏秀春;;“文明沖突”,還是種族主義?——試析法國政府的穆斯林移民政策[J];世界民族;2007年05期
8 韓大元;試論政教分離原則的憲法價值[J];法學(xué);2005年10期
9 孫世彥;歐洲人權(quán)制度中的“自由判斷余地原則”述評[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2005年03期
10 郭春明,郭興之;緊急狀態(tài)下人權(quán)保障的比較研究——國內(nèi)法和國際人權(quán)法的視角[J];比較法研究;2004年02期
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 楊芳;平等原則在少數(shù)民族人權(quán)保障中的適用研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2011年
，本文編號：2334423
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2334423.html
