首页> 外文OA文献 >How to reconcile health law and economic law with human rights? : administration of justice in tobacco control disputes
【2h】

How to reconcile health law and economic law with human rights? : administration of justice in tobacco control disputes

机译:如何使健康法和经济法与人权相协调? :控烟纠纷中的司法

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Tobacco companies and tobacco exporting members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have initiated an increasing number of disputes in national, regional and worldwide jurisdictions and investor-state arbitrations challenging the legal consistency of tobacco control measures - such as Australia's 'Tobacco Plain Packaging' legislation and regulations - with international trade, investment and intellectual property law. The defendant countries and non-governmental organizations tend to justify tobacco-control measures by invoking public health provisions in international economic law (IEL), domestic constitutional laws, public health legislation, human rights law and the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) ratified by 177 UN member states. This article begins by asking how the fragmented systems of multilevel health, economic and human rights law and governance should be interpreted and coordinated in order to promote their mutual legal coherence. It then explores how multilevel courts should 'administer justice' in tobacco control disputes with due regard to their diverse national and international jurisdictions, applicable laws and methods of legal interpretation. The article concludes that multilevel judicial administration of justice in tobacco control disputes requires judicial cooperation in applying 'constitutional methodologies' (e.g. regarding 'balancing' of competing rights, proportionality of restrictions, reasonable judicial justifications promoting 'public reason'), mutually 'consistent interpretations' (e.g. based on the 'integration principle' limiting legal 'fragmentation') and 'judicial comity' (e.g. regarding rule of law, respecting 'margins of appreciation', protecting 'access to justice') so as to avoid incoherent judgments. The main lesson from the more than 2500 years of legal and political experiences - e.g. since the ancient Constitution of Athens (500 BC) - with collective protection of 'public goods' (res publica) demanded by citizens remains the need for limiting abuses of power through multilevel 'republican constitutionalism' providing for legal, judicial and democratic accountability mechanisms.
机译:烟草公司和世界贸易组织(WTO)的烟草出口成员已在国家,地区和全球司法管辖区以及投资者与国家/地区之间的仲裁中引发了越来越多的争端,这些争端挑战了烟草控制措施的法律一致性,例如澳大利亚的“无烟烟草包装”法规-国际贸易,投资和知识产权法。被告国和非政府组织倾向于通过援引国际经济法(IEL),国内宪法,公共卫生立法,人权法和《世界卫生组织(WHO)框架公约》中的公共卫生条款为烟草控制措施辩护。 177个联合国会员国批准了烟草控制(FCTC)。本文首先询问如何解释和协调零散的多级卫生,经济和人权法律与治理体系,以促进它们之间的法律一致性。然后,它探讨了多层次法院应如何在烟草控制纠纷中“司法”,并适当考虑到其不同的国家和国际管辖范围,适用的法律和法律解释方法。该文章的结论是,烟草控制纠纷中的多层次司法司法要求在运用“宪法方法”(例如,关于竞争权的“平衡”,限制的比例性,促进“公共理性”的合理司法辩护),相互“一致”的解释方面进行司法合作。 ”(例如基于“整合原则”,限制法律“碎片化”)和“司法礼让”(例如,关于法治,尊重“欣赏余地”,保护“诉诸司法”),以避免做出前后不一致的判断。来自2500多年法律和政治经验的主要教训-例如自从雅典古代宪法(公元前500年)以来,在公民要求集体保护“公共物品”的情况下,仍然需要通过提供法律,司法和民主问责机制的多层“共和宪政”来限制滥用权力。

著录项

  • 作者

    PETERSMANN Ernst-Ulrich;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2015
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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