再论受教育权——基于“理由束”方法论的分析视角  

Revisiting the right to education:A methodological analysis based on the"bundle of reasons"

作　　者：徐靖[1] 陶文泰 XU Jing;TAO Wentai(School of Law,Central South University,Changsha 410083,China)

机构地区：[1]中南大学法学院,湖南长沙410083

出　　处：《中南大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第3期53-65,共13页Journal of Central South University：Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社科基金一般项目“基于行政裁判文书的高校办学自主权法律边界研究”(20BFX045);湖南省“十四五”教育科学研究基地重点项目“教育数字化时代公民受教育权法治保障研究”(XJK23AJD010);中南大学人权研究中心专项课题“人权法与宪法视域下受教育权规范的比较研究”(CSUHR22020105)。

摘　　要：对于“何为受教育权”这一问题,既有的受教育权方法论并未提供有效的应答策略。描述性方法论界定的受教育权概念缺少区分性和普遍性特征,评价性方法论因无力解决并不稳定的教育价值立场问题而使得受教育权概念陷入正当性“陷阱”。对此,在理由论的基础上,受教育权可被视为依附于一束理由的“要求”。在该“理由束”中,结合欧洲人权法院相关判决,受教育者的自我实现是初级内在理由,平等接受教育为次级内在理由,而包括国家干预在内的其他理由则构成外在理由;受教育权的初级和次级内在理由属于立法范畴的理由,又因无法在立法上穷尽外在理由,所以外在理由被分配至司法范畴。To the question"what is‘the right to education’,"the existing methodological approaches to“the right to education”have failed to provide an effective response.The definition of“the right to education”by descriptive methodology lacks differentiation and universality,while the definition by evaluative methodology renders“the right to education”fall into the trap of legitimacy due to its inability to tackle the instability of educational values.In this regard,on the basis of the theory of reasons,the right to education can be considered"claims"attached to"a bundle of reasons."Based on the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights,in this"bundle of reasons",self-fulfillment is the primary intrinsic reason,equal access to education is the secondary intrinsic reason,and state intervention and other reasons are extrinsic reasons.The primary and secondary intrinsic reasons of the right to education belong to the legislative sphere,and are assigned to the judicial sphere as the extrinsic reasons cannot be exhausted legislatively.

关 键 词：受教育权 欧洲人权法院 方法论 理由束 权利理论 

分 类 号：D903[政治法律—法学理论]