宪法社会权的价值属性与规范定位  

The Value Attributes and Normative Positioning of Constitutional Social Rights

作　　者：陈征 Chen Zheng

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学法学院

出　　处：《环球法律评论》2024年第5期5-21,共17页Global Law Review

基　　金：“中国政法大学钱端升杰出学者支持计划资助项目”的研究成果。

摘　　要：宪法中一些社会权追求实质自由,一些社会权旨在实现实质平等。社会权的实现遵循“可能性保留”原则,其作为基本权利发挥效力不会影响宪法权威,也不会导致权利主体影响立法和预算。与自由权不同,宪法中不存在未列举社会权,社会权也不具有防御权和保护义务功能,宪法仅要求国家积极实现社会权,即使立法者实现社会权的程度降低,也不得套用防御权的分析框架对其进行正当性审查。界定社会权的保障范围与界定自由权的保护范围存在差异。社会权的分析框架不适用“限制的限制”原理,在确定保障范围后应直接对相互对立的原则进行权衡。虽然在解决社会权与其他原则的冲突时应优先由立法者来权衡,但宪法仍然可以在规范层面提供若干权衡依据和标准。立法实现社会权需要的财政支出越多,立法职权对预算职权的影响就越大。社会权的实现依赖于国家和社会,依据辅助性原则,应优先由非国家行为体来实现社会权。The majority of social rights in the Chinese Constitution are aimed at helping citizens achieve substantive freedom,rather than just protecting them from state infringement,thus often requiring active action from the state.Some social rights,such as the right to material assistance,aim to achieve substantive equality.Social rights do not have a defensive function or protection obligation function,and their function is limited to requiring the state to actively promote the realization of social rights.Even if the degree to which legislators realize social rights regresses,the analytical framework for the right of defense cannot be applied to review its legitimacy.In terms of effectiveness,the realization of social rights is a constantly optimizing task that requires consideration of possible factors such as finance.It relies more on the legislative formation and thus exists in the concept of“reservation of possibility”.The realization of social rights requires a balance with other constitutional values.Relative impossibility should be taken into consideration to ensure a reasonable boundary between a law-based state and a fiscal state.A distinction should be made between the scope and the means of social rights protection,with the former exploring whether the state should act and the latter involving how to act.The scope of protection for constitutional social rights should be reasonably defined so that its not be too broad or overly restrictive.There is a difference between defining the scope of protection for social rights and defining the scope of protection for freedom rights.Freedom rights have natural legitimacy,but social rights are different.When defining the scope of protection,strict interpretation should be carried out based on the constitutional text to avoid broad generalization caused by external theories.The Constitution does not require that social rights have a core area that must be realized under any circumstances so that the principle of fundamental rights is not overturned.“The restricti

关 键 词：社会权 基本权利 劳动权 受教育权 可能性保留 

分 类 号：D921[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]