劳动者法律人格研究
|
摘要
劳动者法律人格是劳动法的逻辑原点,也是价值原点,其所蕴含的伦理价值是劳动法体系建构和实施的目的所在。长期以来,劳动法领域对劳动者的研究更多地侧重于实践特性,工具主义的立场导致法律论证和政策分析难以区分,法的伦理价值难以清晰地体现,法律的权威性也逐渐消弱,而现实的后果就是劳动者主体客体化或者说劳动者人格的“物化”,富士康“十二连跳事件”就是一个真实的缩影。
劳动法意义上的劳动者是始于近代工业文明兴起后的工资劳动者或雇佣劳动者。从法哲学的角度来看,劳动者是自由意志在“客观性阶段”经“选择”后的定在形态,“劳动者”就是这个意志的“规定性”。劳动者“有限的自由意志”通过伦理精神把握自己的本质走向“单一的自由意志”,实现真实的自由,这种伦理精神就是劳动伦理,劳动者只有置于劳动伦理中才能上升到“劳动者人格”,才能超越有限性和规定性,实现现实的、具体的自由。劳动不能简单地理解为劳动力的使用或消费,劳动更是人的存在和实现方式,揭示了人是否自由以及在何种程度上自由,与劳动者的人格价值和自由发展紧密相连。劳动者人格与劳动力只能实现逻辑上的分离,而无法现实分离。劳动力商品化的极端演绎将导致劳动的异化或劳动者的“物化”,在劳动法领域就是劳动者主体性的缺失。劳动法律关系的客体不是劳动力,而是隐藏着劳动者人格价值的劳动给付。劳动法律关系也不仅仅是财产价值的交换关系,还是基于劳动伦理之上的雇主与劳动者之间的人格信用关系。
劳动伦理的实在层面就是“体面劳动”,贯穿于劳动关系的各个方面,是指导性原则。源于自然法层面劳动者人格与劳动伦理的统一,体面劳动与作为实在法层面的劳动者法律人格具有契合性,其价值目的就是劳动者。劳动法领域的劳动者法律人格不是区分主体的法技术工具,而是蕴含有劳动伦理精神的伦理型人格。劳动者法律人格的界定应更多地进行价值上的判断,而非囿于作为工具的法技术或形式推演,对其界定宜采取直接模式,建立以劳动者为价值目的的弹性认定标准,即在判断当事人是否为劳动法上的劳动者时,要对照劳动法的目的,即劳动者价值目的性,判断该当事人是否应该被认为是“劳动者”以及是否应该受到保护,在此前提下,确立劳动者法律人格的具体判断标准。劳动者的具体判断标准包括“自然属性”和“法律属性”,前者指年龄、健康和智力;后者主要指“人格从属性”和“经济从属性”。“人格从属性”作为一般劳动者的判断标准,“经济从属性”作为非常态下劳动者的判断标准。
劳动者人格价值的权利形态就是劳动尊严权。劳动尊严权不同于民法上的人格权,有其自身的独立性,是兼具积极性和消极性、绝对性和相对性的权利。劳动尊严权具有开放性和发展性,分为劳动就业权、劳动保护权和劳动发展权,上述权利还可以衍生出一系列子权利。雇主的义务不仅仅来源于劳动合同,也来源于劳动伦理精神。雇主的保护义务不能置于劳动合同附随义务的地位,其法律效力应该高于劳动者作为主给付义务的劳动给付,可作为劳动者主给付义务之抗辩。
在实体立法设计上,保障并实现劳动者体面劳动应该作为劳动法的基本原则或指导原则。在此原则下,确立劳动者职业尊重权、工作场所隐私权、反对职场性骚扰的权利等具体的权利形态。通过在劳动基准法中增加职业心理安全卫生标准,重构劳动保障监察内容,坚持劳动规章程序性审查和实质性审查并重,实行举证责任倒置等手段,建立劳动者人格利益的全面保护机制。
The legal personality of the laborer is the logical starting point in labor law, but also the value of the origin.The ethical values inherent in legal personality of the laborer is the purpose of labor law system construction and implementation. For a long time ,the research on laborer in the field of labor law focuses on its practical characteristics,Instrumentalism gradually destroyed formalism of human reson ration, Which led to difficult distinguishment between legal analysis and policy analysis, uncleat refection of the ethical values of labor law and gradual weakness of the authority of law,and led to the materialization of laborer personality as consequences of reality .“The twelve consecutive jumping events”in Foxconn is a true miniature.
The employer or the wage worker after the rise of modern industrial civilization is the earliest manifestation of the laborer on labor law. The laborer is the manifestation selected by free will in“objectivity stage”.“the laborer”is the prescription of free will.and the laborer’s“limited free will”steps up to“the single free will”through ethical spirit, and achieves true freedom, this ethical spirit is the laobor ethics. The laborer realizes his essence of hunman through labor ehics,and gets real freedom.Only the laborer that exists in the labor ethics is free and real.and abandons its limits and prescriptions. I think that the labor in labor law has not only economic significance, but more significance of ethical values.Labor can not be simply understood as the use of labor or consumption, Labor is the form of man's existence and implementation. Labour reveals Whether freedom and what extent to the freedom of hunman. Labor is closely connected with the personality value and freedom of value. The separation between the labor personality and the labor force is only logical,but not real. The idea of the labor force is easily lead to the "materialized"laborer.The object of labor legal relations is not labor force, but Payment of labor that contains a laborer’s ethics .Labour legal relations is not only the exchange of the property, but also credit relationship of personality beteen the labot and the employer.
“decent work”is the positive content of the labor ethics,which is the guiding principle of labor relations.Because of the unity of labor ehics and the personality of laborer in natural law,the principle of“decent work”is unified with the legal personality in postive law. The value of the laborer is the purpose of labor law. The definition of legal personality of the laborer should be more on the value judgments, rather than relying on deducing by legal technology.The standard of definiton of laborer,which taking the value of laborer personality as the purpose,should be flexible by means of the direct model.When we judge whether a man is the laborer in labor law,we should determine whether the man should be considered“the legal personality of laborer”and should be protected in accordance with the purpose of labor law, On this basis,we establish the specific criteria for judging the legal personality of laborer.The criterion of identification is composed of“the natural property”that including age, health and intelligence,and“the lawful property”that including the“personalitical subordination”that is the general criterion of laborer, and“economic subordination”that is the criterion of irregular laborer.
According to the ethical principles of decent work, the paper proposes the concept of“the right to the dignity of labor”,which is the right form of the value of laborer personality, both positive and negative. From the right content,“the right to the dignity of labor”, as a special kind of personality right, is absolute but also relative. moreover,“the right to the dignity of labor”includs“the right to employment”,“the right to protection”and“the right to development,”that deriving a series of child rights. Employer's obligation is not only from the labor contract, but also from the labor ethic,so the employer's obligation to protect the laborer is not the accompanying obligation of labor contract.
In the designation of rules, the princple of“decent work”should be seen as the fundamental principles of labor law or guidelines.We should identify the spcific rights of the laborer, such as“the right to professional respct”,“the right to workplace privacy”,“the right against workplace sexual harassment”, etc.By means of adding professional psychological health standards in labor standards act, reconstructing the contents of labor security supervision, reviewing the labor regulations both procedural and substantive,reversing burden of proof etc.we should establish a comprehensive protection mechanism for protecting personality interest of the laborer.
劳动法意义上的劳动者是始于近代工业文明兴起后的工资劳动者或雇佣劳动者。从法哲学的角度来看,劳动者是自由意志在“客观性阶段”经“选择”后的定在形态,“劳动者”就是这个意志的“规定性”。劳动者“有限的自由意志”通过伦理精神把握自己的本质走向“单一的自由意志”,实现真实的自由,这种伦理精神就是劳动伦理,劳动者只有置于劳动伦理中才能上升到“劳动者人格”,才能超越有限性和规定性,实现现实的、具体的自由。劳动不能简单地理解为劳动力的使用或消费,劳动更是人的存在和实现方式,揭示了人是否自由以及在何种程度上自由,与劳动者的人格价值和自由发展紧密相连。劳动者人格与劳动力只能实现逻辑上的分离,而无法现实分离。劳动力商品化的极端演绎将导致劳动的异化或劳动者的“物化”,在劳动法领域就是劳动者主体性的缺失。劳动法律关系的客体不是劳动力,而是隐藏着劳动者人格价值的劳动给付。劳动法律关系也不仅仅是财产价值的交换关系,还是基于劳动伦理之上的雇主与劳动者之间的人格信用关系。
劳动伦理的实在层面就是“体面劳动”,贯穿于劳动关系的各个方面,是指导性原则。源于自然法层面劳动者人格与劳动伦理的统一,体面劳动与作为实在法层面的劳动者法律人格具有契合性,其价值目的就是劳动者。劳动法领域的劳动者法律人格不是区分主体的法技术工具,而是蕴含有劳动伦理精神的伦理型人格。劳动者法律人格的界定应更多地进行价值上的判断,而非囿于作为工具的法技术或形式推演,对其界定宜采取直接模式,建立以劳动者为价值目的的弹性认定标准,即在判断当事人是否为劳动法上的劳动者时,要对照劳动法的目的,即劳动者价值目的性,判断该当事人是否应该被认为是“劳动者”以及是否应该受到保护,在此前提下,确立劳动者法律人格的具体判断标准。劳动者的具体判断标准包括“自然属性”和“法律属性”,前者指年龄、健康和智力;后者主要指“人格从属性”和“经济从属性”。“人格从属性”作为一般劳动者的判断标准,“经济从属性”作为非常态下劳动者的判断标准。
劳动者人格价值的权利形态就是劳动尊严权。劳动尊严权不同于民法上的人格权,有其自身的独立性,是兼具积极性和消极性、绝对性和相对性的权利。劳动尊严权具有开放性和发展性,分为劳动就业权、劳动保护权和劳动发展权,上述权利还可以衍生出一系列子权利。雇主的义务不仅仅来源于劳动合同,也来源于劳动伦理精神。雇主的保护义务不能置于劳动合同附随义务的地位,其法律效力应该高于劳动者作为主给付义务的劳动给付,可作为劳动者主给付义务之抗辩。
在实体立法设计上,保障并实现劳动者体面劳动应该作为劳动法的基本原则或指导原则。在此原则下,确立劳动者职业尊重权、工作场所隐私权、反对职场性骚扰的权利等具体的权利形态。通过在劳动基准法中增加职业心理安全卫生标准,重构劳动保障监察内容,坚持劳动规章程序性审查和实质性审查并重,实行举证责任倒置等手段,建立劳动者人格利益的全面保护机制。
The legal personality of the laborer is the logical starting point in labor law, but also the value of the origin.The ethical values inherent in legal personality of the laborer is the purpose of labor law system construction and implementation. For a long time ,the research on laborer in the field of labor law focuses on its practical characteristics,Instrumentalism gradually destroyed formalism of human reson ration, Which led to difficult distinguishment between legal analysis and policy analysis, uncleat refection of the ethical values of labor law and gradual weakness of the authority of law,and led to the materialization of laborer personality as consequences of reality .“The twelve consecutive jumping events”in Foxconn is a true miniature.
The employer or the wage worker after the rise of modern industrial civilization is the earliest manifestation of the laborer on labor law. The laborer is the manifestation selected by free will in“objectivity stage”.“the laborer”is the prescription of free will.and the laborer’s“limited free will”steps up to“the single free will”through ethical spirit, and achieves true freedom, this ethical spirit is the laobor ethics. The laborer realizes his essence of hunman through labor ehics,and gets real freedom.Only the laborer that exists in the labor ethics is free and real.and abandons its limits and prescriptions. I think that the labor in labor law has not only economic significance, but more significance of ethical values.Labor can not be simply understood as the use of labor or consumption, Labor is the form of man's existence and implementation. Labour reveals Whether freedom and what extent to the freedom of hunman. Labor is closely connected with the personality value and freedom of value. The separation between the labor personality and the labor force is only logical,but not real. The idea of the labor force is easily lead to the "materialized"laborer.The object of labor legal relations is not labor force, but Payment of labor that contains a laborer’s ethics .Labour legal relations is not only the exchange of the property, but also credit relationship of personality beteen the labot and the employer.
“decent work”is the positive content of the labor ethics,which is the guiding principle of labor relations.Because of the unity of labor ehics and the personality of laborer in natural law,the principle of“decent work”is unified with the legal personality in postive law. The value of the laborer is the purpose of labor law. The definition of legal personality of the laborer should be more on the value judgments, rather than relying on deducing by legal technology.The standard of definiton of laborer,which taking the value of laborer personality as the purpose,should be flexible by means of the direct model.When we judge whether a man is the laborer in labor law,we should determine whether the man should be considered“the legal personality of laborer”and should be protected in accordance with the purpose of labor law, On this basis,we establish the specific criteria for judging the legal personality of laborer.The criterion of identification is composed of“the natural property”that including age, health and intelligence,and“the lawful property”that including the“personalitical subordination”that is the general criterion of laborer, and“economic subordination”that is the criterion of irregular laborer.
According to the ethical principles of decent work, the paper proposes the concept of“the right to the dignity of labor”,which is the right form of the value of laborer personality, both positive and negative. From the right content,“the right to the dignity of labor”, as a special kind of personality right, is absolute but also relative. moreover,“the right to the dignity of labor”includs“the right to employment”,“the right to protection”and“the right to development,”that deriving a series of child rights. Employer's obligation is not only from the labor contract, but also from the labor ethic,so the employer's obligation to protect the laborer is not the accompanying obligation of labor contract.
In the designation of rules, the princple of“decent work”should be seen as the fundamental principles of labor law or guidelines.We should identify the spcific rights of the laborer, such as“the right to professional respct”,“the right to workplace privacy”,“the right against workplace sexual harassment”, etc.By means of adding professional psychological health standards in labor standards act, reconstructing the contents of labor security supervision, reviewing the labor regulations both procedural and substantive,reversing burden of proof etc.we should establish a comprehensive protection mechanism for protecting personality interest of the laborer.
引文
[1]杨继斌,刘志毅.记者潜伏富士康揭员工自杀之谜[N].南方周末, 2010-05- 13
[2]参见卢麒元博客.康德尔的鸡与富士康的人. http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_ 4a405fd90100iy1v.html, 2010-05-26
[3]史尚宽.劳动法原论[M].台北:正大印书馆, 1978, 3, 1, 7-8
[4] [日]大须贺明.生存权论[M].北京:法律出版社, 2001, 222
[5] [日]有泉亨.劳动者概念的相对性[M].东京:有斐阁, 1985, 28
[6]杨通轩.劳动者的概念与劳工法[J].台北:中原财经法学, 2001, (6)
[7]郑少华.寻找劳动法上的“人”—以社会法为视角.社会科学家, 2007, (1)
[8]李炳安.劳动者的人格尊严权及其宪法救济.广西社会科学, 2003, (7): 84-87
[9] Florence Bonnet,Jose B Figueiredo, and Guy Standing.A family of decent work indexes[J]. International Labor Review, 2003,142,(2):213-238
[10] Bob Hepple.Equality and empowerment for decent work[J]. International Labor Review, 2001,140(1): 5-18
[11]陈振鹭.劳动问题大纲[M].上海:上海大学书店, 1934, 25
[12]王昕杰,乔法容.劳动伦理学[M].开封:河南大学出版社, 1989, 40
[13]常卫国.劳动论[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社, 2005, 28
[14]张怀承.论劳动的伦理意义[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 1991, (6)
[15]邹国球,曾特清.异化劳动:伦理意义及其阙失[J].兰州学刊, 2004, (3)
[16] [美]博登海默.法理学法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来译.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1999, 486
[17] [法]让·路易·伯格.法典编纂的主要方法和特征[A].许章润,郭琛译,清华法学.北京:清华大学出版社, 2006, (8): 23
[18]马克思.资本论(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社, 1975, 201-210
[19]列宁.列宁全集(第6卷)[M].北京:人民出版社, 1959, 234
[20]王全兴.劳动法学[M].北京:人民法院出版社,中国人民公安大学出版社,2005, 46-47, 21-23, 180, 46, 88-89, 105, 231, 234, 287, 256
[21]常凯.劳动关系、劳动者、劳权——当代中国的劳动问题[M].中国劳动出版社, 1995, 13
[22]参见刘艾玉.劳动社会学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2004, 35
[23]康德.实践理性批判[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆, 1960, 107
[24]刘小枫.舍勒全集(第2卷)[C].第2卷,上海:三联书店, 1999, 388
[25] Ernst Zitelmann, Begriffund Wesen der sogenannten juristischen Personen, Leipzig: Duncker&Humblot, 1873, S68.转引自蒋学跃.人格与人格权的源流.法学杂志, 2007, (5)
[26] [日]星野英一.私法中的人———以民法财产法为中心[A].王闯译.民商法论丛(第8卷).法律出版社, 1997, 166, 168, 182
[27]梅夏英.权利能力、人格、人格权[J].法律科学, 1999, (1)
[28] [意]彼德罗·彭梵得.罗马法教科书[M].黄风译.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1992, 29, 376
[29] Thomas, JAC.Textbook of Roman Law[M]. Amsterdam: North - Holland Publishing Co., 1976, 387-388
[30] Carlos Alberto da Mota Pinto.民法总论[M].林炳辉译.澳门:法律翻译办公室,澳门大学法学院,1999, 95
[31]梅仲协.民法要义[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1998, 53
[32]徐国栋.再论人身关系[J].中国法学, 2002, (4): 10
[33]尹田.论自然人的法律人格与权利能力[J].法制与社会发展, 2002, (1): 122
[34]马骏驹,刘卉.论法律人格内涵的变迁和人格权的发展[J].法学评论, 2002, (1): 26-41
[35]王利明.人格权新论[M].长春:吉林人民出版社, 1994, 4-6
[36] [德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译.北京:商务印书馆, 2003, 120
[37]张文显.法哲学范畴研究(修订版)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2001, 15
[38]参见[日]大木雅夫.比较法[M],范愉译.北京:法律出版社, 1999, 117
[39]参见梁治平编.法律的文化解释[M].上海:三联书店, 1998, 37
[40]参见[瑞典]冈纳·缪尔达尔.亚洲的戏剧:对一些国家贫困问题的研究[M].北京:经济学院出版社, 1992, 13
[41] [德]魏德士.法理学[M].丁小春,吴越译.北京:法律出版社, 2005, 81
[42]转引自黄越钦.劳动法新论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2003, 3
[43] See Christian Meier’s article in this volume and idem, Arbeit, Politik, Identitat. Nene Fragen im alten Athen, in: Juergen Kocka&KlausOffe(ed.), Ge-schichte und Zukunfl der Arbeit, Frankfurt am Main 2000 (forthcoming)转引自[德]于尔根·科卡.欧洲历史中劳动问题的研究[J].山东社会科学.李丽娜译.陈启能校, 2006, (9): 5-11
[44] [意]桑德罗·斯契巴尼.债·契约之债[M].丁玫译.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1994, 84
[45]由嵘,胡大展.外国法制史[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 1996, 128
[46] M. A. Bennett, Life on the English Manor 1150-1400[M]. Cambridge University Press, 1984, 39
[47] [德]拉德布鲁赫.法学导论[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社, 1997, 100
[48] [英]梅因.古代法.北京:商务出版社, 1959, 135
[49] [德]阿图尔·考夫曼,温弗里德·哈斯默尔.当代法哲学和法律理论导论[M].郑永流译.北京:法律出版社, 2001
[50]张文显.二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M].北京:法律出版社, 1996, 44-45
[51] [德]卡尔·拉伦茨罗尔夫·克尼佩尔.法律与历史[M].朱岩译.北京:法律出版社, 2003, 75
[52]陈朝璧.罗马法原理[M].北京:法律出版社, 2006, 219
[53]史尚宽.债法总论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2000, 292
[54] [英]韦伯夫妇.英国工会运动史[M].陈建民译.北京:商务印书馆, 1959, 53
[55] Gregory.C.Keating.Distributive and Corrective Justice in the Tort Law of Accidents[J]. Southern California Law Review, 2000,174: 194-195
[56] P.J.Williamsom.Varieties of Corporatism: A Conceptual Discussion[M]. Cambridge University Press, 1992, 20
[57]董保华.社会法的理论体系. http://www.cnlsslaw.com/list.asp?unid=2025,2010-11-26
[58]洪泸敏,章辉美.新中国成立以来企业劳动关系的历史变迁[J].江西社会科学, 2009, (8)
[59]袁伦渠.新中国劳动经济史[M].北京:劳动人事出版社, 1987
[60]关怀.劳动法学[M].北京:群众出版社, 1983, 7
[61]参见列宁选集(第2卷)[M].人民出版社, 1995, (3): 512
[62]古希腊罗马哲学[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1982, 22
[63] Augustine.On Free Choice of the Will[M].Hackett Publishing Company, 1984
[64]参见肖明翰.《失乐园》中的自由意志与人的堕落和再生[J].外国文学评论, 1999, (1)
[65]奥古斯丁.独语录[M].成官泯译.上海:上海社会科学院出版社, 1997, (2): 18-47
[66]赵林.罪恶与自由意志——奥古斯丁“原罪”理论辨析[J].世界哲学, 2006, (5)
[67]胡万年.奥古斯丁自由意志概念的辨正[J].理论界, 2009, (12)
[68]唐逸.理性与信仰—西方中世纪哲学思想[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社, 2005, 29
[69]谢文郁.自由的困境:奥古斯丁自由观的生存分析[J].哲学门, 2002, (2):179
[70] Erasmus–Luther.Discourse On Free Will[M].Translated by Ernst F.Winter.New York:Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1961, 25-26
[71] [德]康德.康德三大批判精粹[M].杨祖陶,邓晓芒编译.北京:人民出版社, 2001, 327, 285-318, 306, 381, 306-381, 344
[72] Descartes. Meditation on First Philosophy[M]. Cambridge University Press, 1986, 62-63
[73]斯宾诺莎,伦理学[M].贺麟译.北京:商务印书馆, 1997, 92
[74]洛克.人类理解论(上册)[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆, 1997, 217
[75]康国霞.康德意志自由思想初探[D]: [华中科技大学硕士学位论文].北京:中国知网优秀硕士论文数据库, 2007, 14-15
[76] Handyside.Kant's Inaugural Dissertation and Early Writings on Space[M]. The Open Court Publishing Co., 1929, 48-49
[77] [德]康德.法的形而上学原理———权利的科学[M].沈叔平译.北京:法律出版社, 1991, 19, 17, 33, 40, 71, 28
[78]哈利斯等.现代合同法(英法合同法比较)[M].转引自董安生.《民事法律行为》[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2002, 47
[79]季雨.形而上的追求与人性的悖论[J].学习与探索, 2009, (6)
[80] [德]黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬,张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆, 1961, 11, 37, 13-14, 16, 19, 24, 46, 44, 45-46, 31, 31-32, 204, 206, 248
[81]高兆明.黑格尔《法哲学原理》导读[M].北京:商务出版社, 2010, 61, 53, 64, 92, 62, 495
[82]薛桂波.意志、自由和法[J].吉林师范大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2009, (1)
[83] See G. W. F. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2003, 68
[84]丁建安.企业劳动规章的法律效力研究: [吉林大学博士论文].北京:中国知网优秀博士论文数据库, 2009, 8, 28, 32
[85]黄越钦.劳动法新论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2003, 136, 143, 7, 99, 96, 94-95, 61, 718, 94
[86]王能君.工作规则与惩戒[A].“劳动基准法”释义一施行二十周年回顾与展望.台北:新学林出版股份有限公司, 2005, 335
[87]郑尚元.劳动合同法的制度与理念[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2008, 341
[88]吕荣海.“劳动法”法源及其适用关系之研究[M].台北:蔚理有限公司, 2002, 280-296
[89] [日]东京大学劳动法研究会.注释劳动基准法[M].东京:有斐阁, 2003, 961
[90]转引自刘志鹏.“劳动法”理论与判决研究[M].台北:元照出版公司, 2000, 268
[91]参见杨继春.用人单位规章制度的性质与劳动者违纪惩处[J].法学杂志, 2003, (9): 48
[92] Donald Harris , Denis Tallon. Contract Law Today[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989, 74
[93] Simon Clarke, Chang-Hee Lee, Qi Li. Collective Consultation and Industrial Relations in China[J].British Journal of Industrial Relations, 2004, 42(2): 235-254
[94] O. Kahn Freund. On Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law[J]. Modern Law Review, 1974,37(1)
[95]参见泰勒:黑格尔[M].张国清等译.译林出版社, 2002, 663-675
[96] J. L. Cohen, A.Arato. Civil Society and Political Theory[M]. The MIT Press, 1992, 84-121
[97] M. Riedel.The Concept of“Civil Society”and The problem of It’s Historical Origin. in Z.A.Pelczynski.The State and Civil Society,3-4.转引自邓正来.市民社会与国家—学理上的分野和架构. http://www.ruiwen.com/news/5381.htm, 2011-03-04
[98]马克思恩格斯全集(第23卷).北京:人民出版社, 1972, 201-202, 190, 194
[99]马唯杰.体面劳动:劳动的伦理批判: [苏州大学硕士学位论文].中国知网优秀硕士论文数据库, 2006, 10
[100]董保华.劳动关系调整的法律机制[M].上海交通大学出版社, 2000, 285
[101]关怀.劳动法学[M].法律出版社, 1996, 185-186
[102]许涤新.政治经济学词典[M].人民出版社, 1980, 402
[103]马克思.资本论(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社, 1972, 191
[104]史探径.劳动法[M].经济科学出版社, 1990, 80
[105] [德]马克思. 1844年经济学哲学手稿[M].人民出版社, 2000, 101
[106]马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].人民出版社, 1956, 12
[107]段志平.论马克思《1844年经济学——哲学手稿》中的异化劳动理论[J].山西大同大学学报, 2008, (5)
[108]刘柱海.论马克思的异化劳动理论及现实导向意义[J].传承, 2008, (6)
[109] Michel Foucault. The Archeology of Knowledge[M]. Tavistock Publications Limited ,1989, 46
[110] Finnis.Natural Law and Natural Right[M]. Oxford University Press, 1980, 59
[111]张国庆.国际劳工局关于体面工作的概念及其量化指标[N].中国劳动保障报, 2003-09-02
[112] Richard Anker, Igor Chemyshev, Philippe Egger,et al. Measuring decent work with statistical indicators[J]. International Labor Review, 2003, 142(2):147-177
[113] Juan Somavia. Reducing the Decent Work Deficit-A Global Challenge [R]. In: the 89th International Labour Conference. Geneva,2001, 8, 11
[114] Richard Anker, Igor Chernyshev, Philippe Egger,et al. Measuring decent work with statistical indicators(working paper No.2)[R]. ILO Policy Integration Department,Statistical Development and Analysis Group, Geneva, 2002
[115] David Bescond,Anne Chataignier, Farhad Mehran. Seven indicators to measure decent work:An international comparison[J]. International Labor Review, 2003, 142(2): 179-211
[116] Philippe Egger.Perspectives:Towards a policy framework for decent work[J].International Labor Review, 2002, 141(2):161-174
[117] Henn Harry, Alexander,John R.Law of Corporation [M]. West pubishing Co., 2000, 345
[118] Chris Howell.Constructing British Industrial Relations[J].The Brithish Journal of Politic and International Relations, 2000, 2(2):211-214
[119] Roderick Martin. The British Tradition of Industrial Relations Research: The Contribution of W. E. J.(Lord) McCarthy[J]. The British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1998,36(1):87-89
[120]参见现代劳动法讲座(1):劳动法基础理论[M].日本劳动法学会, 1981, 268
[121] Roderick Martin,Greg Bamber. International Differences in Employment Relations: What are the Relative Merits of Explanations in Terms of Strategic Choice or Political Economy? [M]. Association of Industrial Relations Academics Australia and New Zealand(AIRAANZ), 2005: 378-379
[122]参见冯彦君.劳动法学[M].吉林大学出版社, 1999, 7
[123]刘继臣.关于工会法人资格[J].中国工运, 2008, (8)
[124] Bo Rothstein. The Social Democratic State:The Swedish Model and the Bureaucratic Problem of Social Reform[M]. University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996, 6-17
[125] Chantal Thomas. Should the World Trade Organization Incorporate Labor and Environmental Standards?[J]. Washington and Lee Law Review, 2004, 38-45
[126]李永军.民法上的人及其理性基础[J].法学研究,2005, (5): 17-18
[127]王益英.外国劳动法和社会保障法[M].中国人民大学出版社, 2002, 72
[128]张磊.劳动法中的劳动者角色定位[D]: [吉林大学法学硕士学位论文].中国知网优秀博士论文数据库, 2006, 85
[129]张国华.劳动关系法律适用研究[D]: [浙江大学法学硕士学位论文].中国知网优秀博士论文数据库, 2004, 17-18
[130]魏千峰.“劳动基准法”上之劳工[C].“劳动法”裁判选辑(一).台北:元照出版社, 1999
[131]参见林更盛.德国法上近来对劳工概念之讨论与立法[J].“劳动法”载判选辑(三).台北:元照出版公司, 2000, 3-4
[132]罗结珍.法国劳动法典[M].中国国际文化出版社, 1996, 128
[133]吕琳.论劳动者主体界定之标准[J].法商研究.2005, (3): 32-34
[134]刘志鹏.“劳动法”理论与判决研究[M].台北:元照出版公司, 2000, 8, 15-16
[135]杨通轩.艺文工作者之身份及其法律上保障之研究[J].台北:中原财经法学, 11
[136]田思路,贾秀芬.契约劳动的研究[M].法律出版社, 2007,60
[137] [日]松冈三郎.合理化下的劳动基准法的地位和作用[J].学会志劳动法, 1963, (22): 8
[138]侯玲玲,王全兴.劳动法上劳动者概念之研究[J].云南大学学报(法学版), 2006, (1)
[139] Joan T.A.Gabel,Nancy R.Mansield.The Information Revolution and It’s Impact on the Employment Relationship: an analysis of the Cyberspace Workplace[J]. American Business Law Journal, 2003, 40:301-354
[140] Barker K,Christensen K,Contingent Wor.American Employment Relations in Transition[M]. Ithaca NY: Comell University Press, 1998, 281-305
[141] Sarisg Kuruvilla, Christopherl Erickson. Change and Transformation in Asian Industrial Relations[J].Industrial Relations, 2002,41(2)
[142]参见[日]和田肇.劳动契约と法理[M].东京:有斐阁, 1990, 153.转引自刘志鹏.“劳动法”理论与判决研究.台北:元照出版公司, 2000, 7
[143] [日]片冈升.现代劳动法的展开[M].东京:岩波书店, 1983, 43
[144]郑尚元.雇佣关系调整的法律分界[J].中国法学, 2005, (3): 87
[145]关怀,林嘉.劳动法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2006, 212.
[146]郑尚元.劳动法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2004, 68
[147]关怀,林嘉.劳动法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2006, 90
[148]贾俊玲.劳动法学[M].北京:中央广播电视大学出版社, 2003, 44
[149]黎建飞.劳动法的理论与实践[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社, 2004, 158- 161
[150] [美]帕特利霞·H·威尔汉,塔拉·J.拉丁,诺曼·E.博威.就业和员工权利[M].杨恒达译.北京:北京大学出版社, 2005, 157
[151] [德]罗尔夫·克尼佩尔.法律与历史——论《德国民法典》的形成与变迁[M].朱岩译.北京:法律出版社, 2003, 183
[152]王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究(1)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2003, 502
[153] [美]范伯格.自由权利和社会主义[M].王守昌,戴栩译.北京:商务印书馆, 1998, (1): 86
[154] [法]托克维尔著.论美国的民主(上卷)[M].董果良译.北京:商务印书馆, 1988, 218
[155]参见董保华.劳动关系调整的社会化与国际化[M].北京:上海交通大学出版社, 2006, 211
[156]康德.法的形而上学原理——权利的科学[M].沈叔平译.北京:法律出版社, 1991, 86
[157] See Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly,Agnes Lucas-Schloetter.Privacy, Property and Personality: Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation [M]. Cambridge University Press ,2005, 192
[158]参见刘大洪,张剑辉.劳动者双重权利的残缺与互动——国企改革中劳动者权利之构造与实现[J].法商研究, 2003, (2): 87
[159]范进学.权利政治论[M].济南:山东人民出版社, 2003, 43
[160]台湾地区劳动法学会.《“劳动基准法”释义——施行二十年之回顾与展望》.台北:新学林出版股份有限公司, 2005, 115
[161]周昌湘.“劳动基准法”解释令汇编[M].台北:永然文化出版股份有限公司, 2005, 150
[162]郑尚元.劳动合同法的制度和理念[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2008, 145
[163]参见冯彦君.劳动权论略[J].社会科学战线, 2003, (1): 35
[164]参见李炳安.劳动权论[M].北京:人民法院出版社, 2006, 121
[165] Kochan, Thomas A,et al. The Transformation of American Industrial Relatons [M]. New York: Basic Books, 1986, 21
[166]薛长礼.劳动权论[D]: [吉林大学博士学位论文].北京:中国知网优秀博士论文数据库, 2006, 72
[167] Marshal, Anna-Maria. Confronting Sexual Harassment: The Law and Politics of Everyday Life[M]. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2005, 40-41
[168]唐灿.性骚扰在中国的存在———169名女性的个案研究[J].妇女研究论丛, 1995, (2)
[169]董保华.社会保障的法学观[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2005, 139
[170]葛明珍.权利冲突论[D]: [中国社会科学院博士论文].北京:中国知网优秀博士论文数据库, 2002
[171]王肃元.论权利冲突及其配置[J].兰州大学学报(社会科学版), 1999, (1)
[172] Joseph Martocchio.Employee Benefits:A Primer for Human Resource Professionals[M]. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003, 14
[173]乐虹.权利冲突解决路径分析[J].长江论坛, 2009, (3)
[174] [美]庞德.通过法律的社会控制:法律的任务[M].沈宗灵,董世忠译.北京:商务印书馆, 1984, 42
[175] Robet Alexy.On Balancing and Subsumption,A Structural Comparison[J]. Ratio Juris, 2003,16(4): 433
[176]参见张新宝.隐私权的法律保护[M].北京:群众出版社, 1997, 21
[177] Jelle Visser,Anton Hemerijck. A Dutch Miracle:Job Growth, Welfare Reform and Corporatism in the Netherlands[M].Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press, 1997, 31-45
[178]苏永钦.宪法权利的民法效力[J].当代公法理论.台北:月旦出版公司, 1997, 198
[179]林晓云.美国劳动雇佣法[M].北京:法律出版社, 2007, 200, 204, 205, 206
[180]参见杨立新,张国宏.论构建以私权利保护为中心的性骚扰法律规制体系[J].福建师范大学学报, 2005, (1): 22
[2]参见卢麒元博客.康德尔的鸡与富士康的人. http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_ 4a405fd90100iy1v.html, 2010-05-26
[3]史尚宽.劳动法原论[M].台北:正大印书馆, 1978, 3, 1, 7-8
[4] [日]大须贺明.生存权论[M].北京:法律出版社, 2001, 222
[5] [日]有泉亨.劳动者概念的相对性[M].东京:有斐阁, 1985, 28
[6]杨通轩.劳动者的概念与劳工法[J].台北:中原财经法学, 2001, (6)
[7]郑少华.寻找劳动法上的“人”—以社会法为视角.社会科学家, 2007, (1)
[8]李炳安.劳动者的人格尊严权及其宪法救济.广西社会科学, 2003, (7): 84-87
[9] Florence Bonnet,Jose B Figueiredo, and Guy Standing.A family of decent work indexes[J]. International Labor Review, 2003,142,(2):213-238
[10] Bob Hepple.Equality and empowerment for decent work[J]. International Labor Review, 2001,140(1): 5-18
[11]陈振鹭.劳动问题大纲[M].上海:上海大学书店, 1934, 25
[12]王昕杰,乔法容.劳动伦理学[M].开封:河南大学出版社, 1989, 40
[13]常卫国.劳动论[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社, 2005, 28
[14]张怀承.论劳动的伦理意义[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 1991, (6)
[15]邹国球,曾特清.异化劳动:伦理意义及其阙失[J].兰州学刊, 2004, (3)
[16] [美]博登海默.法理学法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来译.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1999, 486
[17] [法]让·路易·伯格.法典编纂的主要方法和特征[A].许章润,郭琛译,清华法学.北京:清华大学出版社, 2006, (8): 23
[18]马克思.资本论(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社, 1975, 201-210
[19]列宁.列宁全集(第6卷)[M].北京:人民出版社, 1959, 234
[20]王全兴.劳动法学[M].北京:人民法院出版社,中国人民公安大学出版社,2005, 46-47, 21-23, 180, 46, 88-89, 105, 231, 234, 287, 256
[21]常凯.劳动关系、劳动者、劳权——当代中国的劳动问题[M].中国劳动出版社, 1995, 13
[22]参见刘艾玉.劳动社会学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2004, 35
[23]康德.实践理性批判[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆, 1960, 107
[24]刘小枫.舍勒全集(第2卷)[C].第2卷,上海:三联书店, 1999, 388
[25] Ernst Zitelmann, Begriffund Wesen der sogenannten juristischen Personen, Leipzig: Duncker&Humblot, 1873, S68.转引自蒋学跃.人格与人格权的源流.法学杂志, 2007, (5)
[26] [日]星野英一.私法中的人———以民法财产法为中心[A].王闯译.民商法论丛(第8卷).法律出版社, 1997, 166, 168, 182
[27]梅夏英.权利能力、人格、人格权[J].法律科学, 1999, (1)
[28] [意]彼德罗·彭梵得.罗马法教科书[M].黄风译.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1992, 29, 376
[29] Thomas, JAC.Textbook of Roman Law[M]. Amsterdam: North - Holland Publishing Co., 1976, 387-388
[30] Carlos Alberto da Mota Pinto.民法总论[M].林炳辉译.澳门:法律翻译办公室,澳门大学法学院,1999, 95
[31]梅仲协.民法要义[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1998, 53
[32]徐国栋.再论人身关系[J].中国法学, 2002, (4): 10
[33]尹田.论自然人的法律人格与权利能力[J].法制与社会发展, 2002, (1): 122
[34]马骏驹,刘卉.论法律人格内涵的变迁和人格权的发展[J].法学评论, 2002, (1): 26-41
[35]王利明.人格权新论[M].长春:吉林人民出版社, 1994, 4-6
[36] [德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译.北京:商务印书馆, 2003, 120
[37]张文显.法哲学范畴研究(修订版)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2001, 15
[38]参见[日]大木雅夫.比较法[M],范愉译.北京:法律出版社, 1999, 117
[39]参见梁治平编.法律的文化解释[M].上海:三联书店, 1998, 37
[40]参见[瑞典]冈纳·缪尔达尔.亚洲的戏剧:对一些国家贫困问题的研究[M].北京:经济学院出版社, 1992, 13
[41] [德]魏德士.法理学[M].丁小春,吴越译.北京:法律出版社, 2005, 81
[42]转引自黄越钦.劳动法新论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2003, 3
[43] See Christian Meier’s article in this volume and idem, Arbeit, Politik, Identitat. Nene Fragen im alten Athen, in: Juergen Kocka&KlausOffe(ed.), Ge-schichte und Zukunfl der Arbeit, Frankfurt am Main 2000 (forthcoming)转引自[德]于尔根·科卡.欧洲历史中劳动问题的研究[J].山东社会科学.李丽娜译.陈启能校, 2006, (9): 5-11
[44] [意]桑德罗·斯契巴尼.债·契约之债[M].丁玫译.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1994, 84
[45]由嵘,胡大展.外国法制史[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 1996, 128
[46] M. A. Bennett, Life on the English Manor 1150-1400[M]. Cambridge University Press, 1984, 39
[47] [德]拉德布鲁赫.法学导论[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社, 1997, 100
[48] [英]梅因.古代法.北京:商务出版社, 1959, 135
[49] [德]阿图尔·考夫曼,温弗里德·哈斯默尔.当代法哲学和法律理论导论[M].郑永流译.北京:法律出版社, 2001
[50]张文显.二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M].北京:法律出版社, 1996, 44-45
[51] [德]卡尔·拉伦茨罗尔夫·克尼佩尔.法律与历史[M].朱岩译.北京:法律出版社, 2003, 75
[52]陈朝璧.罗马法原理[M].北京:法律出版社, 2006, 219
[53]史尚宽.债法总论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2000, 292
[54] [英]韦伯夫妇.英国工会运动史[M].陈建民译.北京:商务印书馆, 1959, 53
[55] Gregory.C.Keating.Distributive and Corrective Justice in the Tort Law of Accidents[J]. Southern California Law Review, 2000,174: 194-195
[56] P.J.Williamsom.Varieties of Corporatism: A Conceptual Discussion[M]. Cambridge University Press, 1992, 20
[57]董保华.社会法的理论体系. http://www.cnlsslaw.com/list.asp?unid=2025,2010-11-26
[58]洪泸敏,章辉美.新中国成立以来企业劳动关系的历史变迁[J].江西社会科学, 2009, (8)
[59]袁伦渠.新中国劳动经济史[M].北京:劳动人事出版社, 1987
[60]关怀.劳动法学[M].北京:群众出版社, 1983, 7
[61]参见列宁选集(第2卷)[M].人民出版社, 1995, (3): 512
[62]古希腊罗马哲学[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1982, 22
[63] Augustine.On Free Choice of the Will[M].Hackett Publishing Company, 1984
[64]参见肖明翰.《失乐园》中的自由意志与人的堕落和再生[J].外国文学评论, 1999, (1)
[65]奥古斯丁.独语录[M].成官泯译.上海:上海社会科学院出版社, 1997, (2): 18-47
[66]赵林.罪恶与自由意志——奥古斯丁“原罪”理论辨析[J].世界哲学, 2006, (5)
[67]胡万年.奥古斯丁自由意志概念的辨正[J].理论界, 2009, (12)
[68]唐逸.理性与信仰—西方中世纪哲学思想[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社, 2005, 29
[69]谢文郁.自由的困境:奥古斯丁自由观的生存分析[J].哲学门, 2002, (2):179
[70] Erasmus–Luther.Discourse On Free Will[M].Translated by Ernst F.Winter.New York:Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1961, 25-26
[71] [德]康德.康德三大批判精粹[M].杨祖陶,邓晓芒编译.北京:人民出版社, 2001, 327, 285-318, 306, 381, 306-381, 344
[72] Descartes. Meditation on First Philosophy[M]. Cambridge University Press, 1986, 62-63
[73]斯宾诺莎,伦理学[M].贺麟译.北京:商务印书馆, 1997, 92
[74]洛克.人类理解论(上册)[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆, 1997, 217
[75]康国霞.康德意志自由思想初探[D]: [华中科技大学硕士学位论文].北京:中国知网优秀硕士论文数据库, 2007, 14-15
[76] Handyside.Kant's Inaugural Dissertation and Early Writings on Space[M]. The Open Court Publishing Co., 1929, 48-49
[77] [德]康德.法的形而上学原理———权利的科学[M].沈叔平译.北京:法律出版社, 1991, 19, 17, 33, 40, 71, 28
[78]哈利斯等.现代合同法(英法合同法比较)[M].转引自董安生.《民事法律行为》[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2002, 47
[79]季雨.形而上的追求与人性的悖论[J].学习与探索, 2009, (6)
[80] [德]黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬,张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆, 1961, 11, 37, 13-14, 16, 19, 24, 46, 44, 45-46, 31, 31-32, 204, 206, 248
[81]高兆明.黑格尔《法哲学原理》导读[M].北京:商务出版社, 2010, 61, 53, 64, 92, 62, 495
[82]薛桂波.意志、自由和法[J].吉林师范大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2009, (1)
[83] See G. W. F. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2003, 68
[84]丁建安.企业劳动规章的法律效力研究: [吉林大学博士论文].北京:中国知网优秀博士论文数据库, 2009, 8, 28, 32
[85]黄越钦.劳动法新论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2003, 136, 143, 7, 99, 96, 94-95, 61, 718, 94
[86]王能君.工作规则与惩戒[A].“劳动基准法”释义一施行二十周年回顾与展望.台北:新学林出版股份有限公司, 2005, 335
[87]郑尚元.劳动合同法的制度与理念[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2008, 341
[88]吕荣海.“劳动法”法源及其适用关系之研究[M].台北:蔚理有限公司, 2002, 280-296
[89] [日]东京大学劳动法研究会.注释劳动基准法[M].东京:有斐阁, 2003, 961
[90]转引自刘志鹏.“劳动法”理论与判决研究[M].台北:元照出版公司, 2000, 268
[91]参见杨继春.用人单位规章制度的性质与劳动者违纪惩处[J].法学杂志, 2003, (9): 48
[92] Donald Harris , Denis Tallon. Contract Law Today[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989, 74
[93] Simon Clarke, Chang-Hee Lee, Qi Li. Collective Consultation and Industrial Relations in China[J].British Journal of Industrial Relations, 2004, 42(2): 235-254
[94] O. Kahn Freund. On Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law[J]. Modern Law Review, 1974,37(1)
[95]参见泰勒:黑格尔[M].张国清等译.译林出版社, 2002, 663-675
[96] J. L. Cohen, A.Arato. Civil Society and Political Theory[M]. The MIT Press, 1992, 84-121
[97] M. Riedel.The Concept of“Civil Society”and The problem of It’s Historical Origin. in Z.A.Pelczynski.The State and Civil Society,3-4.转引自邓正来.市民社会与国家—学理上的分野和架构. http://www.ruiwen.com/news/5381.htm, 2011-03-04
[98]马克思恩格斯全集(第23卷).北京:人民出版社, 1972, 201-202, 190, 194
[99]马唯杰.体面劳动:劳动的伦理批判: [苏州大学硕士学位论文].中国知网优秀硕士论文数据库, 2006, 10
[100]董保华.劳动关系调整的法律机制[M].上海交通大学出版社, 2000, 285
[101]关怀.劳动法学[M].法律出版社, 1996, 185-186
[102]许涤新.政治经济学词典[M].人民出版社, 1980, 402
[103]马克思.资本论(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社, 1972, 191
[104]史探径.劳动法[M].经济科学出版社, 1990, 80
[105] [德]马克思. 1844年经济学哲学手稿[M].人民出版社, 2000, 101
[106]马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].人民出版社, 1956, 12
[107]段志平.论马克思《1844年经济学——哲学手稿》中的异化劳动理论[J].山西大同大学学报, 2008, (5)
[108]刘柱海.论马克思的异化劳动理论及现实导向意义[J].传承, 2008, (6)
[109] Michel Foucault. The Archeology of Knowledge[M]. Tavistock Publications Limited ,1989, 46
[110] Finnis.Natural Law and Natural Right[M]. Oxford University Press, 1980, 59
[111]张国庆.国际劳工局关于体面工作的概念及其量化指标[N].中国劳动保障报, 2003-09-02
[112] Richard Anker, Igor Chemyshev, Philippe Egger,et al. Measuring decent work with statistical indicators[J]. International Labor Review, 2003, 142(2):147-177
[113] Juan Somavia. Reducing the Decent Work Deficit-A Global Challenge [R]. In: the 89th International Labour Conference. Geneva,2001, 8, 11
[114] Richard Anker, Igor Chernyshev, Philippe Egger,et al. Measuring decent work with statistical indicators(working paper No.2)[R]. ILO Policy Integration Department,Statistical Development and Analysis Group, Geneva, 2002
[115] David Bescond,Anne Chataignier, Farhad Mehran. Seven indicators to measure decent work:An international comparison[J]. International Labor Review, 2003, 142(2): 179-211
[116] Philippe Egger.Perspectives:Towards a policy framework for decent work[J].International Labor Review, 2002, 141(2):161-174
[117] Henn Harry, Alexander,John R.Law of Corporation [M]. West pubishing Co., 2000, 345
[118] Chris Howell.Constructing British Industrial Relations[J].The Brithish Journal of Politic and International Relations, 2000, 2(2):211-214
[119] Roderick Martin. The British Tradition of Industrial Relations Research: The Contribution of W. E. J.(Lord) McCarthy[J]. The British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1998,36(1):87-89
[120]参见现代劳动法讲座(1):劳动法基础理论[M].日本劳动法学会, 1981, 268
[121] Roderick Martin,Greg Bamber. International Differences in Employment Relations: What are the Relative Merits of Explanations in Terms of Strategic Choice or Political Economy? [M]. Association of Industrial Relations Academics Australia and New Zealand(AIRAANZ), 2005: 378-379
[122]参见冯彦君.劳动法学[M].吉林大学出版社, 1999, 7
[123]刘继臣.关于工会法人资格[J].中国工运, 2008, (8)
[124] Bo Rothstein. The Social Democratic State:The Swedish Model and the Bureaucratic Problem of Social Reform[M]. University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996, 6-17
[125] Chantal Thomas. Should the World Trade Organization Incorporate Labor and Environmental Standards?[J]. Washington and Lee Law Review, 2004, 38-45
[126]李永军.民法上的人及其理性基础[J].法学研究,2005, (5): 17-18
[127]王益英.外国劳动法和社会保障法[M].中国人民大学出版社, 2002, 72
[128]张磊.劳动法中的劳动者角色定位[D]: [吉林大学法学硕士学位论文].中国知网优秀博士论文数据库, 2006, 85
[129]张国华.劳动关系法律适用研究[D]: [浙江大学法学硕士学位论文].中国知网优秀博士论文数据库, 2004, 17-18
[130]魏千峰.“劳动基准法”上之劳工[C].“劳动法”裁判选辑(一).台北:元照出版社, 1999
[131]参见林更盛.德国法上近来对劳工概念之讨论与立法[J].“劳动法”载判选辑(三).台北:元照出版公司, 2000, 3-4
[132]罗结珍.法国劳动法典[M].中国国际文化出版社, 1996, 128
[133]吕琳.论劳动者主体界定之标准[J].法商研究.2005, (3): 32-34
[134]刘志鹏.“劳动法”理论与判决研究[M].台北:元照出版公司, 2000, 8, 15-16
[135]杨通轩.艺文工作者之身份及其法律上保障之研究[J].台北:中原财经法学, 11
[136]田思路,贾秀芬.契约劳动的研究[M].法律出版社, 2007,60
[137] [日]松冈三郎.合理化下的劳动基准法的地位和作用[J].学会志劳动法, 1963, (22): 8
[138]侯玲玲,王全兴.劳动法上劳动者概念之研究[J].云南大学学报(法学版), 2006, (1)
[139] Joan T.A.Gabel,Nancy R.Mansield.The Information Revolution and It’s Impact on the Employment Relationship: an analysis of the Cyberspace Workplace[J]. American Business Law Journal, 2003, 40:301-354
[140] Barker K,Christensen K,Contingent Wor.American Employment Relations in Transition[M]. Ithaca NY: Comell University Press, 1998, 281-305
[141] Sarisg Kuruvilla, Christopherl Erickson. Change and Transformation in Asian Industrial Relations[J].Industrial Relations, 2002,41(2)
[142]参见[日]和田肇.劳动契约と法理[M].东京:有斐阁, 1990, 153.转引自刘志鹏.“劳动法”理论与判决研究.台北:元照出版公司, 2000, 7
[143] [日]片冈升.现代劳动法的展开[M].东京:岩波书店, 1983, 43
[144]郑尚元.雇佣关系调整的法律分界[J].中国法学, 2005, (3): 87
[145]关怀,林嘉.劳动法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2006, 212.
[146]郑尚元.劳动法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2004, 68
[147]关怀,林嘉.劳动法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2006, 90
[148]贾俊玲.劳动法学[M].北京:中央广播电视大学出版社, 2003, 44
[149]黎建飞.劳动法的理论与实践[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社, 2004, 158- 161
[150] [美]帕特利霞·H·威尔汉,塔拉·J.拉丁,诺曼·E.博威.就业和员工权利[M].杨恒达译.北京:北京大学出版社, 2005, 157
[151] [德]罗尔夫·克尼佩尔.法律与历史——论《德国民法典》的形成与变迁[M].朱岩译.北京:法律出版社, 2003, 183
[152]王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究(1)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2003, 502
[153] [美]范伯格.自由权利和社会主义[M].王守昌,戴栩译.北京:商务印书馆, 1998, (1): 86
[154] [法]托克维尔著.论美国的民主(上卷)[M].董果良译.北京:商务印书馆, 1988, 218
[155]参见董保华.劳动关系调整的社会化与国际化[M].北京:上海交通大学出版社, 2006, 211
[156]康德.法的形而上学原理——权利的科学[M].沈叔平译.北京:法律出版社, 1991, 86
[157] See Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly,Agnes Lucas-Schloetter.Privacy, Property and Personality: Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation [M]. Cambridge University Press ,2005, 192
[158]参见刘大洪,张剑辉.劳动者双重权利的残缺与互动——国企改革中劳动者权利之构造与实现[J].法商研究, 2003, (2): 87
[159]范进学.权利政治论[M].济南:山东人民出版社, 2003, 43
[160]台湾地区劳动法学会.《“劳动基准法”释义——施行二十年之回顾与展望》.台北:新学林出版股份有限公司, 2005, 115
[161]周昌湘.“劳动基准法”解释令汇编[M].台北:永然文化出版股份有限公司, 2005, 150
[162]郑尚元.劳动合同法的制度和理念[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2008, 145
[163]参见冯彦君.劳动权论略[J].社会科学战线, 2003, (1): 35
[164]参见李炳安.劳动权论[M].北京:人民法院出版社, 2006, 121
[165] Kochan, Thomas A,et al. The Transformation of American Industrial Relatons [M]. New York: Basic Books, 1986, 21
[166]薛长礼.劳动权论[D]: [吉林大学博士学位论文].北京:中国知网优秀博士论文数据库, 2006, 72
[167] Marshal, Anna-Maria. Confronting Sexual Harassment: The Law and Politics of Everyday Life[M]. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2005, 40-41
[168]唐灿.性骚扰在中国的存在———169名女性的个案研究[J].妇女研究论丛, 1995, (2)
[169]董保华.社会保障的法学观[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2005, 139
[170]葛明珍.权利冲突论[D]: [中国社会科学院博士论文].北京:中国知网优秀博士论文数据库, 2002
[171]王肃元.论权利冲突及其配置[J].兰州大学学报(社会科学版), 1999, (1)
[172] Joseph Martocchio.Employee Benefits:A Primer for Human Resource Professionals[M]. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003, 14
[173]乐虹.权利冲突解决路径分析[J].长江论坛, 2009, (3)
[174] [美]庞德.通过法律的社会控制:法律的任务[M].沈宗灵,董世忠译.北京:商务印书馆, 1984, 42
[175] Robet Alexy.On Balancing and Subsumption,A Structural Comparison[J]. Ratio Juris, 2003,16(4): 433
[176]参见张新宝.隐私权的法律保护[M].北京:群众出版社, 1997, 21
[177] Jelle Visser,Anton Hemerijck. A Dutch Miracle:Job Growth, Welfare Reform and Corporatism in the Netherlands[M].Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press, 1997, 31-45
[178]苏永钦.宪法权利的民法效力[J].当代公法理论.台北:月旦出版公司, 1997, 198
[179]林晓云.美国劳动雇佣法[M].北京:法律出版社, 2007, 200, 204, 205, 206
[180]参见杨立新,张国宏.论构建以私权利保护为中心的性骚扰法律规制体系[J].福建师范大学学报, 2005, (1): 22