论受教育权法律救济制度体系之重构
|
摘要
公民受教育权的救济是公民受教育权保护的最后屏障,在体系化的救济制度中,受教育权才能得到有效的保障。受教育权法律救济制度体系主要指各种受教育权法律救济方式组成一个动态、连接有序的有机系统。西方许多国家以及我国台湾地区都已经建立了比较合理的公民受教育权法律救济制度体系,并在实践中取得良好的社会效果。然而在我国,受教育权法律救济制度体系却远未完善,重构公民受教育权救济制度体系是充分保障作为基本权利的受教育权的当务之急。
在我国现行的法律规定中,受教育权法律救济制度体系包括非诉救济制度和诉讼救济制度两个主要方面。其中非诉救济制度主要包括教育申诉制度和教育行政复议制度,诉讼救济制度包括教育民事诉讼救济制度、教育行政诉讼救济制度和教育刑事诉讼救济制度。然而,各种制度以及制度之间在衔接上都存在明显的缺陷,主要表现为国家本位的立法目的、教育立法的不完备以及受教育权救济制度设计的不合理。这些缺陷的产生既有理论上的原因,也受现实因素的影响。
为了加强我国公民受教育权的保护和救济,必须重构我国公民受教育权救济制度体系。完善我国公民受教育权救济制度体系,需要在吸收借鉴域外先进经验与更新受教育权救济理念的基础之上,从我国公民受教育权救济制度体系的现状出发,做三方面的努力:首先,对现有的受教育权非诉与诉讼救济制度进行必要的修正;其次,创建教育仲裁制度、受教育权公益诉讼制度以及受教育权宪法诉讼救济制度;再次,加强各具体受教育权救济制度之间的系统化。
The relief of citizens' right to education is the final barriers of protecting a citizens' right to education. In the relief system of the right to education,the right to education can get a effective protection possibly. The right to education system of legal remedies mainly refers to various institutions of legal remedy ,which formed a dynamic link between and orderly system. Many Western countries and China's Taiwan all have established a more reasonable citizens’the right to education system of legal remedies, and has made a good social effect in practice. However, in our country, the right to education system of legal remedies are far from perfect. we rebuild the relief system of the right to education systems, which is a top priority to the right to education ,as fundamental human rights.
In our country ,the existing legal provisions,the relief system of the right to education is consisted of two main aspects , including the non-litigation remedies institutions and the litigation institutions. The non-litigation remedies instuitions which mainly include the administration remedy and the review remedy to right to education .At the same time ,the litigation remedies institutions are consisted of the education civil remedy institution, the educational and administrative proceedings remedy institution and the educational Criminal remedy institution. However,three obvious flaws lie in the various remedies institution .firstly, the purpose of legislation of the relief system is based on nativelism. Secondly, the education legislation is not complete. Thirdly, the remedies institutions are designed unreasonable. Both the theoretical reasons and the real factors which lead to the relief system of the right to education is not complete we should rebuild the relief system of the right to education as soon as possible.
In order to strengthen the protection of the right to education ,in Oder to relief the right to education, the relief system of citizens’the right to education must be reconstructed in our country. To improve the relief of the right to education in our country, we must absorb and learn from the advanced experience outside .we must also accept the updated concept of the right to education on the basis of relief. From the status quo of the relief system of the right to education systems of in our country,we do the efforts in three areas. First of all, the existing non-litigation remedy institutions and the litigation remedy institutions of right to education should be amend necessarily;Secondly, the arbitration institution of the right to education, the right to education public interest litigation institution of the right to education and the right to education of constitutional litigation institution of the right to education should be consructed;Thirdly, to strengthen the specific right to education relief institution ,which is important to rebuild a systematic relief system of the right to education.
在我国现行的法律规定中,受教育权法律救济制度体系包括非诉救济制度和诉讼救济制度两个主要方面。其中非诉救济制度主要包括教育申诉制度和教育行政复议制度,诉讼救济制度包括教育民事诉讼救济制度、教育行政诉讼救济制度和教育刑事诉讼救济制度。然而,各种制度以及制度之间在衔接上都存在明显的缺陷,主要表现为国家本位的立法目的、教育立法的不完备以及受教育权救济制度设计的不合理。这些缺陷的产生既有理论上的原因,也受现实因素的影响。
为了加强我国公民受教育权的保护和救济,必须重构我国公民受教育权救济制度体系。完善我国公民受教育权救济制度体系,需要在吸收借鉴域外先进经验与更新受教育权救济理念的基础之上,从我国公民受教育权救济制度体系的现状出发,做三方面的努力:首先,对现有的受教育权非诉与诉讼救济制度进行必要的修正;其次,创建教育仲裁制度、受教育权公益诉讼制度以及受教育权宪法诉讼救济制度;再次,加强各具体受教育权救济制度之间的系统化。
The relief of citizens' right to education is the final barriers of protecting a citizens' right to education. In the relief system of the right to education,the right to education can get a effective protection possibly. The right to education system of legal remedies mainly refers to various institutions of legal remedy ,which formed a dynamic link between and orderly system. Many Western countries and China's Taiwan all have established a more reasonable citizens’the right to education system of legal remedies, and has made a good social effect in practice. However, in our country, the right to education system of legal remedies are far from perfect. we rebuild the relief system of the right to education systems, which is a top priority to the right to education ,as fundamental human rights.
In our country ,the existing legal provisions,the relief system of the right to education is consisted of two main aspects , including the non-litigation remedies institutions and the litigation institutions. The non-litigation remedies instuitions which mainly include the administration remedy and the review remedy to right to education .At the same time ,the litigation remedies institutions are consisted of the education civil remedy institution, the educational and administrative proceedings remedy institution and the educational Criminal remedy institution. However,three obvious flaws lie in the various remedies institution .firstly, the purpose of legislation of the relief system is based on nativelism. Secondly, the education legislation is not complete. Thirdly, the remedies institutions are designed unreasonable. Both the theoretical reasons and the real factors which lead to the relief system of the right to education is not complete we should rebuild the relief system of the right to education as soon as possible.
In order to strengthen the protection of the right to education ,in Oder to relief the right to education, the relief system of citizens’the right to education must be reconstructed in our country. To improve the relief of the right to education in our country, we must absorb and learn from the advanced experience outside .we must also accept the updated concept of the right to education on the basis of relief. From the status quo of the relief system of the right to education systems of in our country,we do the efforts in three areas. First of all, the existing non-litigation remedy institutions and the litigation remedy institutions of right to education should be amend necessarily;Secondly, the arbitration institution of the right to education, the right to education public interest litigation institution of the right to education and the right to education of constitutional litigation institution of the right to education should be consructed;Thirdly, to strengthen the specific right to education relief institution ,which is important to rebuild a systematic relief system of the right to education.
引文
[1] 龚向和. 受教育权论. 北京:中国人民公安大学, 2004, 2-3, 152-155
[2] Fried A L. Right and Wrong. Cambridge: London University Press, 1978, 33
[3] 曾繁康. 比较宪法. 台北: 三民书局, 1978, 136
[4] Douglas Hodgson. The Human Rights to Education. Berkley: Dartmouth Publishing Company limited, 1998, 18-20
[5] Paul Sun R. An Approach to Rights. Dodge:Clarendon Press, 1996, 54
[6] Carl Wellman A L. African Commission on Human Rights. Kluwer Academic Publish, 1997, 154
[7] N. Mac Cirmidk. Beyond the Sovereign State, Modern Law Review, Vol. 56, 1993, 8
[8] European Committee on Fundamental Rights Problem. Report ON Human Rights. Strasbourg:2003, 16-17
[9] [意] 莫诺卡佩莱蒂. 刘俊祥译. 福利国家与接近正义. 北京: 法律出版社, 2000, 311-312
[10] Bertus De Viuiers. Justiciable Social Rights as a Critique of the Liberal Paradigm. Journal of Texan International Law, 1995, 60(3):46
[11] 劳凯声. 教育法学基本问题研究. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 1958, 6
[12] 胡锦光, 任端平. 公民受教育权的宪法属性. 北京: 中国人民公安大学出版社, 1998, 191
[13] 解立军. 学校法律顾问. 北京: 开明出版社, 2003, 122
[14] 龚向和. 社会权力司法救济之宪政分析. 河北法学, 2005, (5):9-15
[15] 周汉华. 法理学. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2003, 130
[16] 王名扬. 英国行政法. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 1987, 135-139
[17] R. D. Waking. Taking Rights Seriously Corer iced. Newyork:Edition Harvard University Press, 1978, 272-273
[18] 杨成铭. 受教育权可诉性新论. 当代法学, 2005, (6): 14
[19] William O. Douglas. The Aspiration Nature of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. London:The Lawyers Co-operative Publish Company, 1991, 88
[20] 劳凯声. 变革社会的教育与受教育权. 北京: 教育科学出版社, 2003, 463
[21] 吴遵民, 黄欣. 新编教育法教程. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2004, 78
[22] 泰惠民. 高校管理法治化趋向中的观念碰撞和权利冲突——当前讼案引发的思考. 现代大学教育, 2002, (1): 73
[23] 劳凯声. 中国教育法制评论(第 3 辑). 北京: 教育科学出版社, 2004, 78
[24] 戴学正. 中外宪法选编. 北京:华夏出版社, 1994, 207
[25] 许志雄. 现代宪法论. 台湾: 台北元照出版社, 2000, 184
[26] [日]室井力主编, 吴微译. 行政法(上卷). 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 1995, 36-40
[27] 于安. 德国行政法. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 1999, 33
[28] 温辉. 受教育权入宪研究. 北京: 中国公安大学出版社, 2003, 98
[29] 郑贤君. 公民受教育权的保护. 北京: 北京人民法院出版社, 189, 88
[30] 龚向和. 作为人权的社会权.南京: 人民出版社, 2007, 108
[31] 费孝通. 乡土中国. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 1999, 58
[32] 李昕. 最高法院酝酿将大学纳入行政诉讼—高校反对声重重. 瞭望东周报, 2004-8-12
[33]Manfred Nowak. The Right to Education. Oxford:The legal Press, 1987, 167
[34][英]威廉·韦德, 徐炳译. 行政法. 北京:中国大百科全书出版, 1997, 314, 327
[35] 秦雪峰, 邢鸿飞. 高校行政违法之救济. 江苏警官学院学报, 2006, (6): 74
[36][美]卡尔·丁. 弗里德里, 夏勇译. 超验正义——宪政的宗教之维. 北京:三联书店, 2003, 101
[37] 王丛虎 . 高校与学生之间行政法律纠纷及其解决思路 . 人民法院报 , 2003-2-24
[38] 马怀德. 修改行政诉法需要重点解决的几个问题. 江苏社会科学, 2005, (6):76
[39][日]盐野宏, 杨建顺译. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 1999, 313
[40] 庞华玲, 王琳. 公益诉讼探析. 北京理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2007, (5):24
[41] 裴智勇. 一个可喜的信号——评公益诉讼走上法庭. 人民日报, 2001-9-5
[42][法]洛克. 政府论(下册). 北京: 商务印书馆, 1981, 32-36
[43] 王利民. 司法改革研究. 北京: 法律出版社, 2001, 279-280
[44] 洪世宏. 无所谓合不合宪法——论民主集中与违宪审查制的矛盾及解决. 中外法学, 2000, (5):47
[45] 陈雄. 诉讼中的中国宪法适用. 甘肃政法学院党报, 2001, (2):63
[46] 韩大元, 刘志刚. 宪法诉讼的民主价值. 法商研究, 2000, (4):91
[47] 周伟. 宪法审判实践中的适用问题研究. 内蒙社会科学, 2000, (4):67
[48] 刘文. 高等教育体制改革中法律问题研究工作. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005, (1): 206
[2] Fried A L. Right and Wrong. Cambridge: London University Press, 1978, 33
[3] 曾繁康. 比较宪法. 台北: 三民书局, 1978, 136
[4] Douglas Hodgson. The Human Rights to Education. Berkley: Dartmouth Publishing Company limited, 1998, 18-20
[5] Paul Sun R. An Approach to Rights. Dodge:Clarendon Press, 1996, 54
[6] Carl Wellman A L. African Commission on Human Rights. Kluwer Academic Publish, 1997, 154
[7] N. Mac Cirmidk. Beyond the Sovereign State, Modern Law Review, Vol. 56, 1993, 8
[8] European Committee on Fundamental Rights Problem. Report ON Human Rights. Strasbourg:2003, 16-17
[9] [意] 莫诺卡佩莱蒂. 刘俊祥译. 福利国家与接近正义. 北京: 法律出版社, 2000, 311-312
[10] Bertus De Viuiers. Justiciable Social Rights as a Critique of the Liberal Paradigm. Journal of Texan International Law, 1995, 60(3):46
[11] 劳凯声. 教育法学基本问题研究. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 1958, 6
[12] 胡锦光, 任端平. 公民受教育权的宪法属性. 北京: 中国人民公安大学出版社, 1998, 191
[13] 解立军. 学校法律顾问. 北京: 开明出版社, 2003, 122
[14] 龚向和. 社会权力司法救济之宪政分析. 河北法学, 2005, (5):9-15
[15] 周汉华. 法理学. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2003, 130
[16] 王名扬. 英国行政法. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 1987, 135-139
[17] R. D. Waking. Taking Rights Seriously Corer iced. Newyork:Edition Harvard University Press, 1978, 272-273
[18] 杨成铭. 受教育权可诉性新论. 当代法学, 2005, (6): 14
[19] William O. Douglas. The Aspiration Nature of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. London:The Lawyers Co-operative Publish Company, 1991, 88
[20] 劳凯声. 变革社会的教育与受教育权. 北京: 教育科学出版社, 2003, 463
[21] 吴遵民, 黄欣. 新编教育法教程. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2004, 78
[22] 泰惠民. 高校管理法治化趋向中的观念碰撞和权利冲突——当前讼案引发的思考. 现代大学教育, 2002, (1): 73
[23] 劳凯声. 中国教育法制评论(第 3 辑). 北京: 教育科学出版社, 2004, 78
[24] 戴学正. 中外宪法选编. 北京:华夏出版社, 1994, 207
[25] 许志雄. 现代宪法论. 台湾: 台北元照出版社, 2000, 184
[26] [日]室井力主编, 吴微译. 行政法(上卷). 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 1995, 36-40
[27] 于安. 德国行政法. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 1999, 33
[28] 温辉. 受教育权入宪研究. 北京: 中国公安大学出版社, 2003, 98
[29] 郑贤君. 公民受教育权的保护. 北京: 北京人民法院出版社, 189, 88
[30] 龚向和. 作为人权的社会权.南京: 人民出版社, 2007, 108
[31] 费孝通. 乡土中国. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 1999, 58
[32] 李昕. 最高法院酝酿将大学纳入行政诉讼—高校反对声重重. 瞭望东周报, 2004-8-12
[33]Manfred Nowak. The Right to Education. Oxford:The legal Press, 1987, 167
[34][英]威廉·韦德, 徐炳译. 行政法. 北京:中国大百科全书出版, 1997, 314, 327
[35] 秦雪峰, 邢鸿飞. 高校行政违法之救济. 江苏警官学院学报, 2006, (6): 74
[36][美]卡尔·丁. 弗里德里, 夏勇译. 超验正义——宪政的宗教之维. 北京:三联书店, 2003, 101
[37] 王丛虎 . 高校与学生之间行政法律纠纷及其解决思路 . 人民法院报 , 2003-2-24
[38] 马怀德. 修改行政诉法需要重点解决的几个问题. 江苏社会科学, 2005, (6):76
[39][日]盐野宏, 杨建顺译. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 1999, 313
[40] 庞华玲, 王琳. 公益诉讼探析. 北京理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2007, (5):24
[41] 裴智勇. 一个可喜的信号——评公益诉讼走上法庭. 人民日报, 2001-9-5
[42][法]洛克. 政府论(下册). 北京: 商务印书馆, 1981, 32-36
[43] 王利民. 司法改革研究. 北京: 法律出版社, 2001, 279-280
[44] 洪世宏. 无所谓合不合宪法——论民主集中与违宪审查制的矛盾及解决. 中外法学, 2000, (5):47
[45] 陈雄. 诉讼中的中国宪法适用. 甘肃政法学院党报, 2001, (2):63
[46] 韩大元, 刘志刚. 宪法诉讼的民主价值. 法商研究, 2000, (4):91
[47] 周伟. 宪法审判实践中的适用问题研究. 内蒙社会科学, 2000, (4):67
[48] 刘文. 高等教育体制改革中法律问题研究工作. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005, (1): 206