...
首页> 外文期刊>European Journal of International Law >Human Rights, International Economic Law and ‘Constitutional Justice’
【24h】

Human Rights, International Economic Law and ‘Constitutional Justice’

机译:人权,国际经济法和“宪法正义”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

According to J. Rawls, ‘in a constitutional regime with judicial review, public reason is the reason of its supreme court’; it is of constitutional importance for the ‘overlapping, constitutional consensus’ necessary for a stable and just society among free, equal, and rational citizens who tend to be deeply divided by conflicting moral, religious, and philosophical doctrines.1 The European Court of Justice (ECJ), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) Court successfully transformed the intergovernmental European Community (EC) treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into constitutional orders founded on respect for human rights. Their ‘judicial constitutionalization’ of intergovernmental treaty regimes was accepted by citizens, national courts, parliaments, and governments because the judicial ‘European public reason’ protected more effectively individual rights and European ‘public goods’ (like the EC's common market). The ‘Solange method’ of cooperation among European courts ‘as long as’ constitutional rights are adequately protected reflects an ‘overlapping constitutional consensus’ on the need for ‘constitutional justice’ in European law. The power-oriented rationality of governments interested in limiting their judicial accountability is increasingly challenged also in worldwide dispute settlement practices. Judicial interpretation of intergovernmental rules as protecting also individual rights may be justifiable notably in citizen-driven areas of international economic law protecting mutually beneficial cooperation among citizens and individual rights (e.g. of access to courts). Multilevel economic, environmental, and human rights governance can become more reasonable and more effective if national and international courts cooperate in protecting the rule of international law for the benefit of citizens (as ‘democratic principals’ of governments) with due regard for human rights and their constitutional concretization in national and international legal systems.
机译:根据罗尔斯(J. Rawls)的说法,“在具有司法审查的宪法制度中,公共理性是最高法院的理由”;这对宪法的重要性对于“自由,平等和理性的公民”中建立稳定和公正的社会所必需的“重叠,宪法共识”是必要的,这些公民往往被冲突的道德,宗教和哲学主义深深地打断。1欧洲法院欧洲法院(ECJ),欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)和欧洲自由贸易区(EFTA)法院成功地将政府间欧洲共同体(EC)条约和《欧洲人权公约》(ECHR)转变为基于尊重的宪法命令为人权。他们的政府间条约制度的“司法宪法化”被公民,国家法院,议会和政府接受,因为司法“欧洲公共理性”更有效地保护了个人权利和欧洲“公共物品”(如欧共体的共同市场)。只要宪法权利得到充分保护,欧洲法院之间的“ Solange方法”合作就反映了欧洲法律对“宪法正义”的必要性的“重叠宪法共识”。有兴趣限制其司法责任的政府的权力导向理性在全球争端解决实践中也日益受到挑战。在保护公民之间的互利合作与个人权利(例如诉诸法院)的国际经济法的公民驱动领域,将政府间规则司法解释为也保护个人权利也许是合理的。如果国家和国际法院为公民(作为政府的“民主主体”)的利益而保护国际法规则的合作,则多层次的经济,环境和人权治理将变得更加合理和有效。他们在国家和国际法律体系中的宪法具体化。

著录项

  • 来源
    《European Journal of International Law》 |2008年第4期|p.769-798|共30页
  • 作者

    Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann*;

  • 作者单位

    *Professor of International and European Law and Head of the Law Department, European University Institute, Florence;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号