劳动权的规范构造及其第三人效力——再论最高人民法院有关“工伤概不负责”的批复  

The Normative Structure of Labor Right and its Third Party Validity——On the Official Reply of the Supreme People’s Court on “No liability for Work Injury”

作　　者：杜强强[1] DU Qiang-qiang

机构地区：[1]首都师范大学政法学院

出　　处：《北方法学》2018年第5期61-70,共10页Northern Legal Science

摘　　要：宪法上的劳动权有着复杂的规范构造，它以职业自由为基础，以国家保护义务为核心，并以国家给付义务为外围。这种规范构造上的复杂性决定了对劳动权第三人效力的理解不宜一概而论。劳动权的核心是国家保护义务和给付义务，在这个方面它很难产生所谓的第三人效力，只有在职业自由方面才有产生第三人效力的可能。当事人在劳动契约中约定“工伤概不负责任”，此种约定之所以无效，不是因为雇主违反了劳动保护的义务，而是因为雇主过度限制了雇工的生命健康权；不是基于劳动权的第三人效力，而是基于生命健康权的第三人效力。最高人民法院选择在劳动保护的角度来展开论证，恰恰未能准确把握案件所涉及的真正宪法问题，且造成社会权面向上的劳动权亦可适用于私法关系而生第三人效力的误解。Labor fight in the Constitution based on occupational freedom has a complicated normative structure, it takes the state protection obligation as the core and the state payment obligation as the peripher- y. The complexity of its normative structure determines the understanding of the third party effect of labor right and is unfavorable to generalize. The core of the right of labor is the obligation of state protection and payment, in this respect it is difficult to produce the so - called third party validity but in occupational free- dom. The parties agree in their labor contract that they shall not be liable for work -related injuries, such an agreement is invalid not because the employer violates the obligation of labor protection, but because the employer excessively restricts the right of life and health of the employee. It is not based on the third party＇s validity of the labor right, but on the right of life and health. The Supreme People＇s Court chose to carry out the argumentation in the angle of labor protection, precisely failed to grasp the real constitutional issue in- volved in the case accurately, and caused the misunderstanding that the labor right based on the social right can also be applied to the third party originated from private law.

关 键 词：劳动权国家保护义务 基本权利 第三人效力 

分 类 号：DF2[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]