荆超:平衡国家安全与人权:欧洲人权法院适用适当性原则的分析模式及其运用实践

选择字号:   本文共阅读 818 次 更新时间:2022-05-31 09:38:00

进入专题: 适当性原则     国家安全     欧洲人权法院     人权保障优先     国家安全优先  

荆超  
no.4776/08,§§ 45-46,CEDH 2017.

   (38)See Perinek v.Switzerland[GC],no.27510/08,§§ 205-206,ECHR 2015.

   (39)See Big Brother Watch and Others v.The United Kingdom,nos.58170/13,62322/14 and 24960/15,§§ 303-310 & 385,ECHR 2018.

   (40)See Janneke Gerards,Judicial Review in Equal Treatment Cases,Nijhoff Publishers,2005,p.48.

   (41)See Grleanu v.Romania,no.50376/09,§ 89,ECHR 2018.

   (42)See Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v.The Netherlands,no.16616/90,§ 40,9 February 1995; Rotaru v.Romania[GC],no.28341/95,§ 47,ECHR 2000-V.

   (43)See Leas v.Estonia,no.59577/08,§ 78,ECHR 2012; Leander v.Sweden,no.9248/81,§ 59,26 March 1987.

   (44)举例来说,在“巴蒂克诉俄罗斯”(Bartik v.Russia)一案的审理中,俄罗斯政府没有具体解释国际旅行禁令在防止申诉人泄露国家秘密问题上所起到的实际效果,申诉人也没有试图证明该措施无法达到政府的目的。See Bartik v.Russia,no.55565/00,§ 49,ECHR 2006-XV.

   (45)See Jonas Christoffersen,Fair Balance:Proportionality,Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights,Brill,2009,p.176-178.

   (46)Aernout Nieuwenhuis,The Concept of Pluralism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights,3 European Constitutional Law Review 367,370(2007).

   (47)See European Court of Human Rights,Guide on Article 8of the European Convention on Human Rights:Right to Respect for Private and Family Life,Home and Correspondence,ECtHR 2020,http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf; European Court of Human Rights,Guide sur L'article 10 de la Convention Européenne des Droits de L'homme:Liberté D'expression,http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_10_FRA.pdf; European Court of Human Rights,Guide on Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights:Freedom of Assembly and Association,http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_11_ENG.pdf.See also Pieter van Dijk,Fried van Hoof,Arjen van Rijn & Leo Zwaak eds.,Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights,4th Edition,Intersentia,2006; David Harris,Michael O'Boyle,Ed Bates & Carla Buckley,Harris,O'Boyle,and Warbrick:Law of the European Convention on Human Rights,3rd Edition,Oxford University Press,2014.

   (48)See Research Division of the European Court of Human Rights,National Security and European Case-Law,ECtHR 2013,http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_national_security_ENG.pdf.

   (49)Aernout Nieuwenhuis,The Concept of Pluralism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights,3 European Constitutional Law Review 367,370(2007).

   (50)有关政治言论的案件,例如Stomakhin v.Russia,no.52273/07,§ 88,ECHR 2018;有关政治团体的案件,例如Zhechev v.Bulgaria,no.57045/00,§§ 35 & 59,ECHR 2007.

   (51)See Thorgeir Thorgeirson v.Iceland,no.13778/88,§ 64,25 June 1992; Dichand and Others v.Austria,no.29271/95,§ 38,ECHR 2002.

   (52)See Observer and Guardian v.The United Kingdom,no.13585/88,§ 59,26 November 1991.

   (53)See Lustig-Prean and Beckett v.The United Kingdom,nos.31417/96 and 32377/96,§§ 80 & 82,27 September 1999.

   (54)See Andrew Legg,The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law:Deference and Proportionality,Oxford University Press,2012,p.153-156.

   (55)See Antoine Buyse,Dangerous Expressions:The ECHR,Violence and Free Speech,63 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 491(2014); Bayar et Gürbüz c.Turquie,no.37569/06,§ 34,CEDH 2012; Stomakhin v.Russia,no.52273/07,§§ 93 & 107,ECHR 2018.

   (56)See Dmitriyevskiy v.Russia,no.42168/06,§ 100,ECHR 2017.

   (57)See Halis Doan c.Turquie(no.3),no.4119/02,§ 34,CEDH 2006; Hocaoullar c.Turquie,no.77109/01,§ 39,CEDH 2006; Sürek v.Turkey(no.3)[GC],no.24735/94,§ 40,ECHR 1999.

   (58)See Halis Doan c.Turquie(no.3),no.4119/02,§ 35,CEDH 2006; Hocaoullar c.Turquie,no.77109/01,§ 39,CEDH 2006; Sürek v.Turkey(no.3)[GC],no.24735/94,§ 40,ECHR 1999.

   (59)社会心理学理论认为,处于群体中的人会进行自我归类,在互动过程中逐渐将彼此分成“我群”与“他群”,强化自我与内群体成员的共性,夸大与外群体的差别。一些政治言论有时有意识地夸大“我群”与“他群”的区别,或是特别突出某一“他群”的存在,制造二者之间的敌意。参见张莹瑞、佐斌:《社会认同理论及其发展》,载《心理科学进展》2006年第3期,第476-477页。

   (60)See Dmitriyevskiy v.Russia,no.42168/06,§ 99,ECHR 2017; Sürek v.Turkey(no.4)[GC],no.24762/94,§ 60,ECHR 1999; Fatullayev v.Azerbaijan,no.40984/07,§ 116,ECHR 2010; Gzel et zer c.Turquie,nos.43453/04 and 31098/05,§ 56,CEDH 2010; Nedim ener c.Turquie,no.38270/11,§ 116,CEDH 2014; mk v.Turkey,no.53413/11,§ 105,ECHR 2014; Dilipak c.Turquie,no.29680/05,§ 62,CEDH 2015.

   (61)See Dmitriyevskiy v.Russia,no.42168/06,§§ 99-100,ECHR 2017.

   (62)举例来说,在“费雷特诉比利时”(Féret c.Belgique)一案中,当时比利时国内处于选举期间,当事人散发的材料中包含了基于种族、肤色、国籍或民族本源的歧视性内容,对此比利时援引的合法理由是“防止混乱”以及“保护他人的名誉或者权利”,而非“国家安全”。See Féret c.Belgique,no.15615/07,§§ 59 & 76,CEDH 2009.

   (63)相关案例包括Gürbüz et Bayar c.Turquie,no.8860/13,CEDH 2019; Karatepe c.Turquie,no.41551/98,CEDH 2007; and Sürek v.Turkey(no.1)[GC],no.26682/95,ECHR 1999-IV.

   (64)See Stomakhin v.Russia,no.52273/07,§ 105,ECHR 2018.

(65)See Stomakhin v.(点击此处阅读下一页)

    进入专题: 适当性原则     国家安全     欧洲人权法院     人权保障优先     国家安全优先  

本文责编:陈冬冬
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 法学 > 国际法学
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/134274.html
文章来源:人权研究

1 推荐

在方框中输入电子邮件地址,多个邮件之间用半角逗号(,)分隔。

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2022 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号-1 京公网安备11010602120014号.
工业和信息化部备案管理系统