国际人权法中的准司法程序与中国——以《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约任择议定书》为例  

On Quasi-judicial Procedures in International Human Rights Law and China——Taking the OP-ICESCR as an Example

作　　者：郭曰君[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东理工大学法学院,上海200237

出　　处：《广州大学学报（社会科学版）》2016年第3期17-23,共7页Journal of Guangzhou University:Social Science Edition

基　　金：国家社科基金项目(10BFX099);华东理工大学教育部直属高校专项科研经费项目(WT1322002)

摘　　要：除强制性程序外,我国迄今尚未接受联合国任何一项核心人权公约或其任择议定书规定的个人来文程序、国家间指控程序以及调查程序。以《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约任择议定书》(简称"《任择议定书》")为例,通过分析在《任择议定书》约文谈判和起草过程中我国对个人来文程序、国家间指控程序和调查程序的立场、意见和建议,可以得出以下结论:我国往往与《任择议定书》的支持者相左,比较接近于怀疑论阵营。中国政府提倡人权对话反对人权对抗的理念和做法是正确的。但国际人权法中的准司法程序的对抗性不同于人权对抗,因此,笔者建议我国应当积极采取措施,为批准《任择议定书》创造条件,并在适当时机签署和批准《任择议定书》,且在积累一定经验之后,再决定是否接受其他核心人权公约或其任择议定书规定的准司法程序。Except for the compulsory procedures,China has not accepted any individual communication procedure,inter- state communication procedure and inquiry procedure provided for in any UN core human rights treaty or its optional protocol. Taking Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights（ OP- ICESCR） as an example,and by analyzing the position,opinions and suggestions of China on the individual procedure,inter- state procedure and inquiry procedure in drafting process of the OP- IESCR,conclusion can be drawn that China＇s position was usually different from that of the supporters of the OP- ICESCR,but was similar to that of the sceptical camp. The idea and practice that China advocates human rights dialogue and opposes human rights confront is correct. But the antagonism of quasi- judicial procedures in international human rights law is different from human rights confront. It is suggested in the present article that China should take steps actively to create conditions to sign and ratify the OP- ICESCR,and decide whether accept more quasi- judicial procedures provided for in other core human rights treaties and their optional protocols after China has obtained experiences in the future.

关 键 词：准司法程序 《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约任择议定书》 个人来文程序 国家间来文程序 调查程序 中国 

分 类 号：D998.2[政治法律—国际法学]