本文選題：兒童最大利益　切入點：兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)　出處：《山西大學(xué)》2007年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 兒童是社會的弱勢群體，對弱勢群體進(jìn)行特別保護(hù)是人權(quán)理論發(fā)展和當(dāng)今世界立法的總趨勢。兒童的立法是否完善，是衡量一個國家法制進(jìn)步與否的基本尺。國際上有1959年《兒童權(quán)利宣言》和1989年《兒童權(quán)利公約》等關(guān)于兒童的法律。我國政府歷來十分重視保護(hù)兒童權(quán)益，在憲法以及《中華人民共和國未成年人保護(hù)法》中都對兒童權(quán)益的保護(hù)作出了原則性的規(guī)定，但是我國有關(guān)兒童權(quán)利的保護(hù)理論側(cè)重于青少年刑事犯罪方面，視角較為單一。隨著我國改革開放的深入發(fā)展，特別是計劃經(jīng)濟體制為市場經(jīng)濟體制所取代，社會生活的各個領(lǐng)域都發(fā)生了翻天覆地的變化，在婚姻家庭領(lǐng)域關(guān)于兒童的立法情況也出現(xiàn)了許多新問題，“更加注意尊重和保護(hù)兒童利益”已是現(xiàn)代婚姻家庭法的發(fā)展趨勢之一。因此，我國的兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)存在許多亟待解決和需要完善的問題。 相比之下，澳大利亞自從1990年加入《兒童權(quán)利公約》之后。在兒童權(quán)利保護(hù)立法上取得了長足的進(jìn)步，確立了諸多先進(jìn)的兒童權(quán)利保護(hù)規(guī)定，體系較為完善且可操作性強。在司法實踐方面也積累了不少經(jīng)驗。本文試圖通過中國與澳大利亞有關(guān)兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)法律制度的比較，分析我國與澳大利亞兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)法律制度之間的差異，借鑒其立法與司法的有益經(jīng)驗，再結(jié)合我國實際國情，提出完善我國相關(guān)立法與司法的建議，以期對我國的兒童權(quán)利保護(hù)事業(yè)提供一個可借鑒的思考角度。 本文除前言和結(jié)束語外，共分為四個部分。 第一部分對兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)法律制度進(jìn)行了綜合性的敘述。在明確了“兒童”定義的基礎(chǔ)上，介紹了兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)法律制度的歷史沿革以及與兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)相關(guān)的基本理論和國際立法。最后闡釋了兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)的法律意義。 第二部分對中澳兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)立法進(jìn)行比較分析。通過中澳兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)法律制度的對比，可以看出中澳兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)法律制度在“兒童最大利益”原則，兒童的生命權(quán)問題，婚生子女的確認(rèn)與非婚生子女的稱謂，父母責(zé)任的強調(diào)和“獨立代表人”制度的設(shè)立等方面存在異同。 第三部分對中澳兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)司法實踐進(jìn)行比較。首先指出了澳大利亞司法實踐中的若干問題，如子女意愿優(yōu)先問題；父母操行問題；性別優(yōu)先問題；宗教信仰問題；子女姓氏決定問題和對同性家庭兒童特殊保護(hù)的問題。之后闡述了中國兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)司法實踐中父母監(jiān)護(hù)缺位引發(fā)的社會問題，父母離婚后兒童的監(jiān)護(hù)問題以及同性家庭中的兒童撫養(yǎng)問題。最后指出了澳大利亞兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)司法實踐給我國的啟示。 第四部分提出完善我國兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)法律制度的建議。首先指出中國兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)的立法缺陷與司法實踐中存在的問題。如在立法方面說明其未確立“兒童最大利益原則”；未取消非婚生子女的稱謂；關(guān)于婚生子女、人工生育子女和繼子女身份的確認(rèn)不明確；離婚訴訟中未設(shè)立兒童“訴訟代表人”制度等問題。在司法實踐方面，指出法院對“流浪”兒童、“留守”兒童和貧困兒童三類特殊兒童司法保護(hù)的不力；在確定離婚后未成年子女監(jiān)護(hù)權(quán)的歸屬方面沒有將子女最大利益原則作為首要考慮條件；以及在同性家庭中子女撫養(yǎng)方面存在的困惑。在分析這些問題的基礎(chǔ)上，，借鑒澳大利亞相關(guān)有益的經(jīng)驗，結(jié)合我國具體國情，提出完善我國兒童權(quán)利保護(hù)立法與司法的建議。
[Abstract]:Children are the vulnerable groups of society, special protection of vulnerable groups is the general trend of development and the world legislation theory of human rights. Children's legislation is perfect, is the basic rule to measure progress in a country's legal system and not. 1959 "Declaration on the rights of the child and the Convention on the rights of the child in 1989 < > > and other international laws about children. The Chinese government has always attached great importance to the protection of children's rights in the constitution, the law on the protection of minors and the < People's Republic of China > in children's rights made provisions in principle, but the protection theory of children's rights in China focuses on the youth criminal, the more a single perspective. With the further development of China's reform and opening up in particular, the planned economy system to market economy system replaced all areas of social life have undergone changes in turn the world upside down, in the field of marriage and family in children There are many new problems in the legislation of children. "Paying more attention to respect and protect the interests of children" is one of the trends of modern marriage and family law. Therefore, there are many problems to be solved and need to be perfected in the protection of children's rights and interests in China.
In contrast, Australia since 1990 to join the Convention on the rights of the child. < > has made considerable progress in the protection of children's rights legislation, established many advanced children rights protection regulations system is perfect and operable. In the judicial practice has accumulated much experience. This paper tries to compare China about Australia children's rights protection legal system, analyzes the differences between the legal system of China and Australia to protect children's rights, draw lessons from the legislative and judicial experience, combined with the actual situation in our country, put forward perfect our country relevant legislative and judicial suggestions, the cause of the protection of children's rights to China in order to provide a reference the angle of thinking.
In addition to the preface and the end, this article is divided into four parts.
The first part gives a comprehensive description of children's rights protection legal system. In the clear "based on the definition of children", introduces the history of the legal system of the protection of children's rights protection and related basic theory and the international law and the rights of children. The final interpretation of the legal significance of children's rights protection.
Second part is about the comparison of child protection legislation in Australia. By comparing the legal system of child protection in Australia, can be seen in the Australian children's rights protection legal system in "the principle of best interests of children", children's right to life, confirmation of the legitimate child and illegitimate children of the title, there are similarities and differences in the emphasis on parental responsibility and the "independent representative" system establishment and so on.
The third part compared to the judicial practice of child protection in Australia. Australia firstly pointed out several problems in the judicial practice, such as children will conduct priority issues; parents; gender priorities; religious belief; children's surname determine problems and special protection for the children of same-sex couples. Then it explains the social problems caused by parents the absence of monitoring Chinese judicial practice of child protection, guardianship of children after the parents divorce and same-sex families raising children. Finally points out the children's rights and interests protection judicial practice in Australia to China.
The fourth part puts forward to perfect the legal system of the protection of children's rights in China is proposed. Firstly pointed out that there are defects in legislation and judicial practice Chinese children's rights in question. As in the aspect of the legislation has not established the principle of the best interests of children; not canceled out of wedlock called a legitimate child; and after artificial birth children their identity is not clear; not set up children's "legal representative" system in the divorce proceedings. In judicial practice, the Court pointed out that the "Tramp" children, "the lack of left behind children and the poor children three special children of judicial protection; ownership of guardianship in determining after divorce not the best interests of the child as a primary consideration; and raising children in same-sex family aspects of confusion. On the basis of analysis of these issues for reference Australia's relevant useful experience, combined with the specific national conditions of our country, put forward suggestions to improve the legislation and judicature of the protection of the rights of children in China.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山西大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號】：D913

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 景春蘭;殷昭仙;;探望權(quán)及其主體擴展的立法思考——以“兒童最大利益”原則為視角[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年08期

2 ;[J];;年期

3 ;[J];;年期

4 ;[J];;年期

5 ;[J];;年期

6 ;[J];;年期

7 ;[J];;年期

8 ;[J];;年期

9 ;[J];;年期

10 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉宇梁;中澳兒童權(quán)益保護(hù)法律制度比較研究[D];山西大學(xué);2007年

本文編號：1605592