【作者】 丁艳波；

【导师】 李琦；

【作者基本信息】 厦门大学 ， 宪法与行政法学， 2007， 硕士

【副题名】兼与生命权比较

【摘要】 人类已经生活在一个人权受到普遍关注的时代。然而无论是在学术研究还是社会生活中,生命权和生存权这两个概念的使用都很混乱。本文认为应该从实质上将它们明确区分开来,并且应该注意它们和国家权力之间关系的不同:生命权要求国家在它面前尽量保持一种消极不作为的态度;而生存权则违反了人们对于传统基本权的消极理解和国家角色的定位,它要求国家积极地作为以使其成为现实的权利。首先,本文提出作为免于暴力的生命权在其运行中遭遇了尴尬,它必然要由生存权来进行补充。然而作为与生命权意义相近的概念,要论证生存权为何能被普遍认可,实是一项复杂的课题。本文分析了生存权广泛存在于各国宪法和国际人权文件中,从历史角度验证了其确实存在。其次,本文从逻辑和理论的角度论证了从生命权到生存权的变迁存在内涵上的联系。将公民生活当作一个整体来考虑时,努力使个人免于国家暴力仅仅是公民生活的一部分,在更多时候公民必须为了摆脱贫困、过上体面的生活而努力。因此,相对于生命权免于暴力的实质,本文将公民生存权定位为一种免于匮乏的权利。本文还分析了生存权是一项具体权利,以及它与生命权的异同。为了更好地促成公民的发展与完善,生存权已经在学理及实践两个层面获得越来越广泛的承认。最后,如果人们忽视对生存权实现机制的关注,则对生存权的研究将没有任何意义。为了实现免于匮乏的理想,政府的各个机关都应该根据其职能履行相应义务,于是具体探讨谁的何种义务就成为第三章的任务:立法机关的立法义务、行政机关的实施义务、司法机关的救济义务。总之,本文对生存权作了较为全面而系统的论述,通过分析其与生命权的差异对比提出生存权是一种免于匮乏的权利,从历史、逻辑和理论角度对其进行了验证,并论证了该项权利的实现机制。更多还原

【Abstract】 Nowadays, Human beings are living in an era in which human rights have acquired universal regards. But conceptions of right to life and right to subsistence have been used confusedly in academic researches and social life. Now, it is necessary to differentiate them clearly and definitely. And when using these two concepts, we should specially pay attention to their different relations to state powers: the right to life requires the state to remain as much as possible inactive towards it; while right to subsistence goes against the people’s understanding of conception of traditional fundamental right and definition of the state’s role, it expects that the state plays a positive role to make the right realized.First, As a right close to the right to life by concept, to establish why the right to subsistence has the ability of driving widespread approbation is really a complicated topic. The paper analyzes the right to life has faced embarrassment. It needs the right to subsistence by all means to be carried on complement. Then the paper argues the right to subsistence has existed in constitutions of all countries and the international human right documents. The right to subsistence has its place on history. As a result from the analytical angle of the history the paper verified the existence of the right to subsistence.Second, the Chapter Two establishes the relationship between the right to life and the right to subsistence from the analytical angles of the logical and theoretical. When we consider people’s life as a whole, being free from the violence from the government is a very small part in the whole individual life, but making efforts to live well occupies main time of the citizens. As a result, this paper achieves the conclusions that the right to life is a right being free from the violence from the government, then the right to subsistence is a right from want. Then the paper analyzes the right to subsistence is a concrete right and the similarities and differences between theses two rights. Therefore, the right to subsistence is more and more accepted in both theory and practice in order to promote the evolution and perfection of human existence, episteme and dignity. Third, if people neglect the concern which carries out the mechanism of right to subsistence, this research will have no meaning. For the sake of realization ideal of the right to subsistence, each organizations of government should take its correspondent obligation according to its working talent. Therefore, analyzing whose obligation of each organizations of government is the main task of the Chapter Three: the lawmaking obligation of the legislative branch, the administration obligation of the administrative branch, the implement obligation of the judiciary branch.Therefore, this study attempts to establish the basic structure of the right to subsistence .Through analyzing the difference between right to life and the right to subsistence in order to understand the nature of them, the paper puts forward that the right to subsistence is a right from want. Then, the paper analyzes the right to subsistence from historical logical and theoretical aspects. At last, the paper establishes the way how to realize the right to subsistence.更多还原