语言权利和少数民族语言权利保障研究

【作者】 郭友旭；

【导师】 徐中起；

【作者基本信息】 中央民族大学 ， 民族法， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 语言问题是民族问题的一部分,语言权利问题在最近引起了国际社会的关注。探讨语言权利的法理问题,可以真正把语言权利问题引入国内法学界的视野,并为少数民族语言权利的法律保护提供坚实的理论基础,也为我国将来的少数民族语言立法提供理论参考。由于语言是文化的一部分,研究语言权利法律问题,也许可以为探讨文化权利法律问题找到一个切入口。本论文贯彻法理分析的思路,以规范分析方法、价值分析方法、文献分析方法和历史分析方法探讨语言权利的法理问题。第一章阐述语言权利成其为权利的理论基础和现实基础。随着全球化的推进,人类语言多样性正面临日益严重的威胁。语言是文化的特殊部分,同时又是文化的载体。语言是民族文化最后的家园。语言是一种文化得以存续的关键因素,语言的灭失可能意味着文化的灭失。保护文化多样性就必须保护语言多样性。语言还是民族认同的重要载体。语言既是文化的、科学的、语言的资源,又是一种经济资源。以自己的母语进行交流是对自然习得的资源的最有效利用。相反,被迫学习他种语言以适应社会生活意味着时间、金钱和机会成本的付出。语言的经济价值有高有低与语言平等并不矛盾。人使用自己的语言织就社会生活的网,语言是一个人参与社会生活不可或缺的资源。法律世界是依靠言语运转的世界,是很典型的以言行事和以言取效的世界。权利是在人的关系中存在和表现的。语言对各种权利的享有和实现起着至关重要的作用,语言为所有权利发言。对语言的使用如此重要,并且,历史上和现实生活中都存在对语言使用的压迫,因此,在语言上赋予某些权利是适当的和有意义的。证成语言权利的,始终是语言作为交流工具和认同载体的价值,而非语言的内在价值。语言权利问题在最近二十多年突显出来,除了语言多样性的流失所引起的关切之外,有其深刻的现实背景和学术背景。东欧在向西方民主制过渡的过程中民族冲突不断,这些冲突许多是以语言划界的。语言政策在民主过渡过程中扮演至关重要的角色。作为超国家民主政体的欧盟在履行职能的过程中,语言多样性是发展泛欧民主的重大障碍。对建设新型的跨国民主的实际挑战的任何回应措施必须尽力解决语言多样性问题。在国家内部,语言在促进民主化和应对区域性少数群体的民族主义中也处于中心的地位。全球化和信息化背景下,移民一体化中出现的移民“跨国主义”和多元文化主义也衍生出语言权利问题。在人文社会科学尤其是政治学内部,对语言权利的关切是多元文化公民理论和协商民主理论的核心问题。社会生活离不开语言。语言政策要解决的各种问题中,相当一部分可以表述为语言权利问题,这些问题涉及国家机关内部语言使用、公共服务、立法、司法、教育、私人语言使用、移民和归化等。第二章从法理上探讨语言权利的概念、分类、主体、性质、特征等问题。语言权的概念是语言法理论中的一个难题。笔者将语言权界定为“围绕选择使用母语(本语言群体的语言)或其他语言而形成的一系列权利的总称”。这个界定没有明确揭示语言权的权利主体和权利内容,只揭示语言权的核心是在使用何种语言表达思想、感情和认同问题上的选择权或自由。从法律上看,语言权只涉及语言形式。(语种)本身,不涉及通过语言表现出来的思想内容,不涉及对这种思想内容的先进或落后、合法或非法、对指涉对象的褒扬或贬抑等等的价值判断。语言权是一系列权利的总和,是权利束,而不是单一的权利。语言权的旨趣在于保障权利主体在语言选择上的自由,防范国家公权力实施目的在于语言同化的政策或措施,使有关权利主体避免非自愿的语言转用。从不同的角度,语言权分为基本语言权和普通语言权、个人语言权和群体语言权、宽容性语言权利和促进性语言权利、消极的语言权利和积极的语言权利、属人的语言权利和属地的语言权利、工具性语言权利和非工具性语言权利。语言权利与表达自由、话语权既有区别又有联系。语言权的权利主体既可以是个人,也可以是语言群体,在实定法上还可能是国家机关和社会组织。语言权的义务主体首先是国家(以国家机关为代表),在实际的法律关系中也可以是个人和社会组织。语言权具有群体性、地域性、非排他性、牵连渗透性等特征,而群体性是其基本特征,语言法中许多难解的理论和实践问题都因之而起。语言权利既是个人权利又是群体权利。无论是居于多数的语言群体或其成员,还是居于少数的语言群体或其成员,都有语言权利。不过,居于多数的语言群体及其成员的语言权利是受社会的规则和惯例保障的,在他们看来享有语言权利属于当然。语言少数群体的语言权利是语言法应予关注的核心对象。语言权利通常是就语言少数群体或少数民族的语言权利而言。第三章从纵向和横向考察国际法中的语言权利。纵的方面,将考察国际法中语言权利的发展历史;横的方面,将考察国际法中语言权利的内容。对国际法中的语言权利的内容的发掘表明,目前国际法中的语言权利具有相当的补丁性质,并没有被确认为基本权利,这与理论上它是基本权利很不相称。之所以如此,原因可能有二。一是国家利益上的考虑。国家是国际法的基本主体。许多国家不承认国内存在少数群体或少数民族,或者反对少数群体保护,保护语言少数群体被认为有不利的影响,削弱国家的内聚力,损害国家的统一。禁止对语言少数群体的歧视和不宽容符合大部分国家的利益,因为这可以避免爆发内部冲突,威胁国际安全。故各国能够达成一个语言宽容的体制,而语言促进体制不符合大部分国家的利益。其二也许是国家对语言多样性的管理上的困难。第四章探讨语言权利的规范原则或赋权原则问题。自国际法开始关注语言少数群体以来,语言权利问题就一直是困扰各国政府和学界的问题。目前,在国际法实践中,语言权利主要是通过平等和不歧视原则、表达自由、教育权利等获得间接保护的。近30年来,国际社会已经开始了语言权利法典化的尝试,一些国家的语言单项立法也有意识地以语言权利为中心。国家法律究竟要赋予人们(尤其是属于语言少数群体的人)什么样的语言权利?赋予哪些语言权利?这些权利的强度如何?在回答这些问题之前,笔者在此提出语言权利的规范原则问题。笔者尝试提出平等和效率原则、群体权利和个人权利并重原则、属地原则为主兼顾属人原则,并赞同温斯托克的语言政策三原则,即最小化、反象征、可修正。第五章考察国际社会提出的关于一般语言权利的各种主张。近30年来,国际社会对语言权利问题的关注与日俱增,各种组织和个人对语言权利问题表现出浓厚的兴趣。他们大都认为语言权是一种基本人权,具有普遍性,并企图揭示其一般内容,走的是一条“普遍主义”的路线。目前,在联合国框架内,并没有一份专门规定语言权利的有法律约束力的国际法文件。语言权利的内容和范围仍处于探索之中。世界各国要达成一份详细列举语言权利的有约束力的普遍性法律文件还有很长的路要走。本章主要考察西方学界和国际组织提出的关于语言权利的几份文件,这些文件具有程度不同的代表性。在它们产生的过程中,学术界起了主要作用,因此可以将它们看作学术上的主张。本章还要介绍国内学界在这方面的学术观点。到目前为止,西方学术界和国际组织提出的关于语言权利的文件主要是:国际语言教师联合会(FIPLV)《世界基本语言权宪章》(1992年);欧洲安全与合作组织(OSCE)为少数民族高级专员服务的族群关系基金会《关于少数民族语言权利的奥斯陆建议书》(1998年);国际笔会之翻译和语言权委员会《世界语言权宣言》(1996年);TERRALINGUA发布的《世界语言人权宣言》(Universal Declaration ofLinguistic Human Rights)。国内除了学术理论探讨以外,2008年5月,中国学界联合挪威学界发表了《保障少数民族语言权利的北京—奥斯陆建议书》。通过对这些可贵的探索的分析,我们或许会认为,在语言权利的内容方面要寻求更多的通则异乎寻常地困难,抽象地谈论语言权利的内容或许是没有意义的。语言权利也许应依具体的国家、具体的语言等客观情形而定。第六章探讨语言权利的保障措施问题。不受保障,没有救济措施的权利本质上不是权利。在国际法中,语言权利根据有关国际法文件的实体规定和程序安排获得保障。在国内法中,语言权利的保障首先需要国家立法确认语言权利的内容和界限。行政保障,尤其是语言少数群体的语言在国家公共职能和公共服务中的使用是保障语言少数群体使用自己的语言的权利的关键。政府的社会进步和发展措施,教育、培训和宣传、必要的机构的设立等对语言权利的保障具有基础性作用。语言权利还需要必要的司法救济。第七章考察中国少数民族语言权利保障的立法和实践并作出初步评价。中国的语言文字状况是复杂的。在正确的理论指导下,中国少数民族使用和发展自己的语言文字的自由得到了有效的保障,国家的立法、行政、司法、教育、媒体等领域都为少数民族语言的使用提供了充分的空间。中国奉行各民族语言文字平等的政策,对少数民族语言权利的保障采行的是集体保障原则和属地原则。在中国,政府的促进性语言权利体制安排和实践表明少数民族语言权利是一种积极权利。中国宪法和有关法律摒弃“国语”和“官方语言”两个概念,关照了各民族在国家象征上的平等,是正确的做法。在这一章中作者还就未来中国的少数民族语言立法提出了一些看法。经查,这是我国第一篇以语言权利法律问题为主题的学位论文。论文比较系统地阐述了语言权利的法理,如语言权利的概念、分类、与其他相关概念的区别和联系等。论文在国内第一次比较系统地提出了语言权利的规范原则。论文对目前国际社会提出的关于语言权利的各主要文件作了初步的系统介绍、分析和研究。论文根据语言权利的基本理论,对中国政府的有关立法和实践作了系统的介绍、分析和评价。更多还原

【Abstract】 The issue of language is a part of ethnic problem. Recently the problem of language rights has aroused the concern of the international society. Jurisprudential analysis of it can bring the issue into the view of the domestic circle of jurisprudence, and provide strong theoretical basis for the legal protection of the linguistic rights of ethnic minorities. The exploration will provide theoretical reference for Chinese legislation about ethnic minority languages. Because language is a part of culture, the exploration of language rights will be a window through which to examine the problem of cultural rights.The paper carries out the approach of jurisprudential analysis and probes into the problem of language rights in the ways of normative analysis, value analysis, document analysis and historical analysis.Chapter 1 explores the theoretical and actual basis of problem of language rights. With the progress of globalization, linguistic diversity of mankind is being threatened seriously more and more. Languages are special parts of cultures. Meanwhile, they are the foundation stone of cultures. Language is of vital importance to the surviving or disappearing of the corresponding culture. The lost of it may mean the extinction of the culture. To protect cultural diversity involves the protection of linguistic diversity. Languages are important vehicles of ethnic identity.Languages are not only cultural and linguistic and scientific resources, but also a kind of economic resources. Communication in one’s own mother tongue is the most efficient use of the naturally acquired resource. To the contrary, to be forced to acquire any other language means the burden of time, money and opportunity costs. The economic values of languages vary from one to another. This does not contradict linguistic equality.Human beings use their own languages to weave the net of social life. Language is the essential resource for one to enter into societal communities. The legal world is the world whose working depends on speeches, and a typical world in which things are done with speeches and effects are achieved with speeches. Rights exist and manifest themselves in relations between persons. Language plays a pivotal role in the enjoying and realizing of all kinds of rights. It speaks for them.The use of language is so important. Moreover, oppression on language use happened in history and happens in real life. For these reasons, it is appropriate and meaningful to establish certain rights on language use. What establishes language rights isn’t the internal value of language but the value of it as tool of communication and vehicle of identity.The problem of linguistic rights has been emerging in recent thirty years. Besides the concerns arising from the lost of linguistic diversity, it has its profound real backgrounds and academic ones. In the transition of Eastern European countries to liberal democracy, ethnic conflicts surged, many of them along linguistic lines. Language Policy plays an important role in the transition to democracy. As a super-national democratic polity, the European Union has being taken great efforts to develop pan-European democracy. But linguistic diversity is a main obstacle. Any response to the real challenges of building a new kind of transnational democracy has to try hard to tackle the problem of linguistic diversity. Within a nation, language is also central to promoting democratization and dealing with nationalism of regional minorities. In the background of globalization and informationization, immigrant transnationalism arising out of immigrant integration and the appearing of multiculturalism also give rise to certain problems of language rights. Within humanities and social sciences, especially politics, the concern about linguistic rights is the central problem of the theories of multicultural citizenship and deliberative democracy.Social life can’t work without language. Among the problems language policy tries to resolve, many can be phrased as problems of language rights. They involve interior language use of state organs, public services, legislation, justice, education, private language use, immigrant and naturalization. Chapter 2 probes into the concept, classification, subjects, nature and features of language rights from the view of jurisprudence. The concept of language rights is a difficult question in the theory of language law. In the present paper, it is defined as a series of rights formed, with the kernel of choosing mother language (the language of the linguistic group) or other language or languages to use. This definition does not reveal the subjects or contents of language rights, but only the heart of them, which is the right or freedom to choose which language or languages to express one’s own thoughts, feelings or identity. Language rights, legally seen, relate only to the forms of languages, not the contents of thoughts expressed in the language or languages, not to mention the valuation of the contents, whether they be backward or advanced, legal or illegal, honoring or relegating. Language rights are a bundle of rights, not a single right. The main purpose of them is to guarantee the freedom of right subjects of language use and to prevent public power of the state from implementing policies or measures with the intention of linguistic assimilation, and to enable concerned subjects to avoid language shift against their own will.Language rights have the characters of collectiveness, territoriality, non-exclusiveness, and infiltration. Among these features, collectiveness is the most fundamental. Many theoretical and actual puzzles result from it. Language rights are both individual and collective. All linguistic groups and their members, whether they are majority or minority, have language rights. However, the language rights of linguistic majority groups and their members are guaranteed by social rules and customs. For them, the enjoying of language rights is of course. The language rights of linguistic minorities and their members are the core objects that language law should concern about. Language rights refer usually to the language rights of linguistic or ethnic minorities.Chapter 3 examines linguistic rights in international law both vertically and horizontally. That is to say, to explore the developing history and contents of language rights in international law. The survey of the contents of linguistic rights in international law reveals that language rights in international law take on a nature of patchwork to a considerable degree at present, and hasn’t been established as fundamental rights. This does not match very well to the theoretical claim that they should be basic rights. There are two possible reasons for this. One is the consideration of state interests. State is basic subject in international law. Many states deny recognizing that there exist minority groups or ethnic minorities, or oppose the protection of minority groups. They think that the protection of linguistic minority groups has adverse effects, undermines national cohesion and threatens state unity. The prohibition of discrimination and intolerance of linguistic minority groups accords with the interests of most countries, for it can prevent interior conflicts from outbreak, which does harm to international security. As a result, states can agree on a system of linguistic tolerance. But a system of linguistic promotion is seen as not conforming to the interests of most states. The other reason may be the managerial difficulties of linguistic diversity of the state.Chapter 4 discusses the normative or right-granting principles of language rights. Since linguistic minority groups were concerned about in international law, language rights, as a problem, has been troubling the governments and academic circles around the world. At present, language rights are indirectly guaranteed mainly through the principle of equality and non-discrimination, freedom of expression and right to education. In the recent thirty years, international society has begun to take efforts to codify language rights, and separate language legislations in some countries have centered linguistic rights consciously. What language rights should the state grant its people, especially those belonging to linguistic minority groups? And to what degrees? Before answering these questions, here the question of normative principles of language rights is put forward.The concept of normative principles of language rights is the principles as fundamental guideline and basic value rules when the state grants linguistic rights to the individuals and organizations under its jurisdiction. It is fundamental guideline governing the legislation, enforcement, abiding and legal supervision of language rights. It has great importance in linguistic law.Here the author puts forward tentatively the principle of equality and efficiency, the principle of collective right and individual freedom both emphasized, the principle of territoriality and personality both emphasized. And Weinstock’s three principles of language policy are indorsed, which are minimalism, anti-symbolism, and revisability.Chapter 5 looks into different versions about universal language rights put forward in international society. In recent thirty years, concerns about the problem of language rights have been increasing, and different kinds of organizations and individuals have shown interest in it more and more. Most of them think that language rights are a kind of fundamental rights and have the nature of universality. Taking a route of universalism, they intend to reveal the general contents of language rights.For the time being, there existed no legally binding international law document in UN framework which specifically deals with language rights. The contents and ranges of linguistic rights are still in discussion. It will be a long way for the states around the world to conclude a legally biding universal document which specifically provides language rights in all fields. Chapter 5 surveys mainly a few documents separately addressing the problem of language rights put forward by western academic communities or international organizations. They have different degrees of representativeness. In the process of their formation, the academic circle played the main role. So, they can be seen as academic stands. In chapter 5, academic opinions in Mainland of the China will be introduced.By now, documents about language rights raised by western academia and international organizations are mainly as follows:1. Universal Charter of Basic Human Language Rights (FIPLV, 1992);2. Oslo Recommendations Regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities (OSCE, 1998);3. Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (the International Pen Club, 1996);4. Universal Declaration of Linguistic Human Rights (TERRALINGUA).Within the Mainland of China, beside a few papers have dealt with the problem, cooperating with Norwegian academia, Chinese scholars have put forward the Beijing-Oslo Recommendations on Guaranteeing Language Rights of Ethnic Minorities.Through the analysis of these valuable efforts, we may find that it is unbelievably difficult to seek for more universals about the contents of language rights, and that it might be meaningless to talk about the contents of language rights abstractly. They maybe are contingent upon specific states, specific languages, and so forth. Chapter 6 discusses different kinds of measures by which language rights are guaranteed. Rights without guarantees and reliefs aren’t rights essentially. In international law, some language rights are guaranteed according to substantial and procedural norms. Within a country, the protection of language rights entails state legislation establishing the contents and boundaries. Administrative protection, especially the use of languages of linguistic minority groups in state function and public services, is the key to guaranteeing the right of these groups to use their own languages. Governments’ measures of social progress and development, education, training and propagation, establishing of necessary agencies will play a basic role for the protection of language rights. They need also necessary judicial reliefs.Chapter 7 checks guarantees of language rights of ethnic minorities in China, and makes preliminary evaluation. The situation of languages and their writing systems is complicated. Under the correct theoretical guidance, the freedom of the ethnic minorities in China to use and develop their own languages and writing systems is guaranteed effectively. Many fields of the state, such as legislation, administration, justice, education and pubic media give enough rooms to the use of minority languages. China enforces a policy of equality of all ethnic languages and their writing systems. In the protection of language rights, the principles of collective guarantee and territoriality are adopted. Chinese government’s promotional linguistic rights regime arrangement and practice have indicated that language rights of ethnic minorities are positive rights. The Constitution and concerned laws of China avoid the two concepts of national language and official language. This takes sufficiently into consideration the equality of all ethnic groups in national symbols and is a wise decision. Finally, some fragmental thoughts are put forward about the future legislation on ethnic minority languages in China.According to preliminary survey, the paper is found to be the first dissertation for degrees in China. It systematically discusses the basic dimensions of language rights, such as its concept, classification, differences from and similarities to other concerned concepts. It puts forward the normative principles of language rights domestically and systematically for the first time. It introduces, analyzes and evaluates preliminarily and systematically the main documents about language rights by different international organizations. It introduces, analyzes and evaluates comprehensively concerned legislations and practice of China.更多还原