English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 110934/141854 (78%)
Visitors : 47809502      Online Users : 979
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81042


    Title: 不歧視原則之經濟社會權利保障效力：《歐洲人權公約》當代課題
    Other Titles: The Non-Discrimination Principle in the Protection of Economic and Social Rights-A Contemporary Challenge for the European Convention on Human Rights
    Authors: 翁燕菁
    Weng, Vivianne Yen-Ching
    Contributors: 政治系
    Keywords: 不歧視原則;經濟社會權利可裁判性;動態解釋;權利有效保障;差別待遇
    Non-Discrimination Principle;Justiciability of Economic and Social Rights;Dynamic Interpretation;Effectiveness of Rights;Difference in Treatment
    Date: 2013-09
    Issue Date: 2016-02-02 10:00:52 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 基於實質有效權利保障原則，經社權利滲入歐洲人權公約行之有年，而公約第14條（不歧視原則）之運用，則相對饒富新意。公約實質權利條款保障事物範圍與時俱進，第14條爰得反轉自身配件性質為救援特質，於國家積極義務範疇中，藉其「客觀且合理」之比例原則，限縮國家評斷餘地並協助排除社會政策制定之任意性。其尤與私人家庭生活及財產權相輔相成，系統性發揮經社權利保障效力。惟此救援力之開發，約以歐洲共識為界：就爭議尚巨者，宜暫藉實質權利條款之但書為被告國保留裁量權。凡此應屬歐洲人權法院對公約當代課題之務實回應。
    The cause of advancing economic and social rights via the European Convention on Human Rights has long benefited from the principle of effective rights, while the use of Article 14 (non-discrimination principle) in this regard seems to have recently come into fashion. Initially of ancillary importance, Article 14 may come to the fore when the fact at issue falls within the scope of certain substantive provisions of the Convention. For instance, in the fields of economic and social rights, State Parties normally enjoy a large margin of appreciation under the Convention. Under Article 14, the Strasbourg Court has the authority to compel State Parties to defend differential treatment on the basis of objective and reasonable grounds, even on issues of economic and social rights. That said, invoking this Article against State Parties may overreach the understood European consensus. In the absence of some minimum common denominators, the Strasbourg judges can give priority to a substantive provision that leaves greater latitude to the defending State. Such pragmatism should be considered a prudent approach to contemporary challenges to the Convention.
    Relation: 歐美研究, 43(3), 637-707.
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    637707.pdf3915KbAdobe PDF2613View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback