社会福利保障的宪法路径选择  

On the Choice of the Constitutional Path of Guaranteeing Social Welfare

作　　者：王堃 Wang Kun

机构地区：[1]广州大学人权研究院,广东广州510006

出　　处：《政治与法律》2020年第4期59-70,共12页Political Science and Law

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“贸易冲突背景下的工商业与人权研究”(项目编号:18JJD820007)的阶段性成果;国家留学基金资助。

摘　　要：世界各国宪法保障社会福利有两种模式,一种是在宪法中列举各种社会权利的"社会权"保障模式,另一种是仅在宪法中明确建设社会国家的原则或者类似条款的"社会国"保障模式。从我国《宪法》的现有规定及其变迁、宪法的解释与学界的解读看,我国属于"社会权"模式。"社会权"保障模式的缺陷是随着民众追求平等意识的成长、市场机制的扩展和公民权利意识的增强,社会福利可能借助宪法无序、无限地扩张。通过淡化社会福利的权利性质、转变社会权的合宪性审查的方向、扩展反射利益推进社会福利以及贯彻宪法设立的可承受性、适度性原则,可以推进我国社会福利宪法保障模式由"社会权"模式向"社会国"模式转换。There are two modes of guaranteeing social welfare in the constitutions of countries around the world. One is the "social-rights" guarantee mode by listing various social rights in the Constitution, the other is the "social-state" guarantee mode by only clarifying the principles of building a social state or stipulating similar provisions in the Constitution. From the current provisions of the Constitution and their evolution, the interpretation of and the academia’s understanding on the Constitution, China adopts the "socialrights" mode. The deficiency of such mode is that, with the growing awareness of the public of pursuing equality, the expansion of market mechanisms, and the increasing awareness of citizens of their rights, the social welfare may be unorderly and unlimitedly expanded by use of the Constitution. By weakening the nature of social welfare as rights, changing the direction of constitutional review on social rights, expanding the reflective interests to promote social welfare and sticking to the principle of acceptability and proportionality of establishing social welfare in the Constitution, we can promote the transformation of China’s constitutional guarantee of social welfare from the "social-rights" mode to the "social-state" mode.

关 键 词：社会福利 社会权 “社会国” 宪法保障 

分 类 号：DF2[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]