经济、社会和文化权利的国际可诉性:国际监督与国家主权的平衡  

The International Justiciability of Economic,Social and Cultural Rights:Balancing International Oversight and National Sovereignty

作　　者：狄磊 Di Lei

机构地区：[1]中国社会科学院大学法学院

出　　处：《人权》2024年第6期181-206,共26页Human Rights

基　　金：国家社科基金一般项目“公私法同频保护背景下健康权的实施问题研究”(项目批准号:2021BFX169)的阶段性成果;中国社会科学院学科建设“登峰战略”资助计划(编号:DF2023YS34)资助。

摘　　要：旨在化解经济、社会和文化权利可诉性困境的《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约任择议定书》生效已有十一年,但这并不意味着经社文权利的可诉性困境得到根本解决。回溯缔约史,各国就经社文权利在国内法上的可诉性达成了宝贵共识,但对个人来文程序的受理范围、受理方式、受理标准以及实质问题的审查标准等国际可诉性问题顾虑重重。《任择议定书》通过以来,其接受程度以及个人来文程序的运行状况并不乐观,这进一步凸显并加深了经社文权利的国际可诉性困境。经济、社会和文化权利的个人来文程序应在国际监督与国家主权间取得平衡。在程序问题上,经济、社会和文化权利委员会应充分激活受理标准在筛选个人来文以及提供程序性保障方面的价值,恪守国际人权监督机制的权责边界;就实体问题而言,委员会应进一步澄清“合理性标准”作为实质审查标准的内涵,避免对缔约国提出天花板式的要求,减少对缔约国自由判断余地的干涉,使其在兼具稳定性与灵活性的基础上发展成为一套具有可预见性的审查标准。The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights(hereinafter referred to as the“Optional Protocol”),aimed at resolving the challenges surrounding the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights(ESCR),has been in effect for eleven years.However, this does not signify a definitive resolution of the justiciability dilemma.A review of the Covenant's negotiation history reveals that states reached a valuable consensus on the domestic justiciability of ESCR.However, significant concerns persist, regarding the scope, methods, and standards of admissibility, as well as substantive issues in international justiciability.Since the adoption of the Optional Protocol,its acceptance and the operation of individual communication procedures have been far from ideal, further exacerbating the international justiciability challenges of ESCR.To address these challenges, individual communication procedures concerning ESCR must strike a balance between international oversight and national sovereignty.In terms of procedural issues, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(CESCR)should fully leverage admissibility criteria to screen individual communications and ensure procedural safeguards, while adhering to the boundaries of responsibilities within international human rights monitoring mechanisms.In terms of substantive issues, the Committee should further clarify the“reasonableness standard”as the substantive review criterion, avoiding ceiling-like requirements for contract states and minimizing interference with their discretion.This approach would allow the development of a predictable standard of review that combines stability and flexibility.

关 键 词：经济、社会和文化权利 《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约任择议定书》 经济、社会和文化权利委员会 个人来文程序 合理性标准 

分 类 号：D998.2[政治法律—国际法学]