《澳大利亚首都地区人权法案》研究
|
摘要
本篇论文围绕澳大利亚ACT人权法案展开。在澳大利亚联邦法律层面,联邦宪法中没有专章设定“权利保护”条款,也没有专门的联邦人权法律来保障人权实现。在州区法律层面,ACT人权法案是澳大利亚第一部对人权进行保护的法律,无论是有关人权实施的保障还是对于权力运行的限制,都在澳大利亚人权保护历史上占据着举足轻重的地位,其制定和实施在全澳都产生了极大的反响。它标志着澳大利亚权利运动的胜利和权利意识的成熟。ACT人权法案在借鉴各国人权立法实践和国际人权约法内容的基础上,逐渐丰富着权利保护的内容,具有鲜明的特点。文章从规范分析的视角研读这部人权法案,除了导论和尾论之外共包括五部分内容。
文章导论部分对选题意义、国内外研究现状、文章写作框架和研究方法进行介绍和阐释。文章主要从历史发展和法律文本的角度解读ACT人权法案,进而得出人权保护法典化的启示,试图为中国人权法律制度的建设和完善提供借鉴。国外尤其是澳大利亚本国对于这部人权法案的研究成果丰硕,而国内对于这部人权法案的研究尚属空白,因而此选题具有填补国内对于澳大利亚人权法律研究空白的价值和意义。文章先从澳大利亚人权保护的背景切入,接着分析ACT人权法案的制定经过和主要内容,最后阐释其在本地区和澳大利亚产生的影响。
文章第一章论述了澳大利亚的独特历史和权利保护状况。从澳大利亚独特的历史和多元民族文化中追溯权利保护的背景,继而阐释在大不列颠和美利坚的双重影响下的澳大利亚权利保护进路。澳大利亚继承英了国普通法的传统,遵循议会主权原则,又借鉴吸收了美国的三权分立思想,具有逐渐的成文宪法；接着分析澳大利亚普通法和制定法对于公民权利的保护状况。由于宪法对于权利保护的缺失,普通法和制定法对于人权的保护就显得尤为重要。而由于普通法对权利保护的局限性和间接性使得人们把权利保护的重任施加到制定法的专门保护上,这就需要制定一部人权法案来切实保障人权实现。在联邦层面展开了对于制定全国统一人权法案的大讨论,人权法案一方面可以使人权保护法律化、系统化和明确化,另一方面会限缩人权保护的应有范围,还会破坏基于三权分立基础之上的立法、司法和行政机关的制衡关系,这些是否有必要制定一部全国统一的人权法案争论,是制定ACT人权法案的推动因素,也是出台ACT人权法案的影响因素。
由于对制定全国性人权法案一直不能形成统一的意见,首都地区作为澳大利亚的政治中心,在人权保护领域起着引领性和风向标的作用,在全面考察分析首都地区的人权保护的实际状况之后首先尝试制定一部人权法案。本文第二章接着阐释ACT人权法案的基本框架。ACT人权法案通过对已有人权立法的借鉴,并将众多国际人权约法中的权利纳入到自身法律保护的范围之内。已有的人权立法有不同的效力等级,ACT人权法案采取了制定法的形式,借鉴吸收美国、加拿大、新西兰和英国等国家人权法律中的有益因子,包括权利保护的列举方式、对于人权限制条款的规定等内容。对于已有人权立法性质和内容的吸收借鉴是ACT人权法案的两大特点。在具体权利种类和内容的保护方面,ACT人权法案通过转化的方式,将诸多国际人权约法中的权利内容吸纳到法案之中,使它们在本地区内具有法律效力。对于已有人权立法的借鉴内容和对于国际人权约法的吸纳内容构成了ACT人权法案的重要组成部分。通过阐明ACT人权法案的基本架构和未纳入其中的权利,可以从总体上把握ACT人权法案的基本内容。这些未纳入到人权法案中的权利主要是经济、社会和文化权利,这些权利也有待在人权法案的修正案中得到确认和保护。
文章第三章着重阐释ACT人权法案保护的权利及其在司法实践中的适用。权利保护始终是人权法案的核心内容,ACT人权法案用二十个条款列举出人权保护的具体种类和详细内容,并且明示所保护的权利为公民权利和政治权利。文章试图从法案所保护的二十种权利中选取具有典型意义的权利作具体分析,从司法实践中诉讼频率较高的五种权利入手,分别阐释公正审判权、人身自由和安全权、隐私权和名誉权、家庭和儿童的权利以及刑事诉讼中的权利这五种权利的主要内涵；并结合相关案例,考察了法院在处理人权案件的诉讼中,法官如何以保护当事人的人权为基点来解释和运用相关条款。ACT人权法案规定的这些具体权利内容使得大部分人权具有可诉性,并且能够使法官在进行法律解释时更加从容地援引人权法案的相关条款。
文章第四章论述人权的限制条款和解释条款,并阐释了ACT人权法案规定的人权保护的义务主体是公共当局。人权的限制条款和解释条款和公共当局的人权保护义务构成了ACT人权法案的重要内容。任何权利都有边界,对人权进行必要的限制是维持法律平衡状态的必然要求。在自由和民主的社会中,人权只应受到法律合理的限制并且这种限制应当是绝对正确的。在对人权极其相应主体的行为进行合理限制的时候还应该综合考虑各种因素,包括权利的性质、限制的目的、范围和影响等。接着分析澳大利亚法律解释的特点和原则为人权解释条款的适用做理论上的铺垫。人权的解释条款规定,为了尽可能的和立法目的保持一致,法官在进行法律解释的时候需要与人权法案相一致。ACT人权法案对于公共当局的范围和义务做了明确的规定,规定公共当局的行为需要符合人权保护的要求,并且概括性地规定公共当局的哪些行为是违反人权保护义务的行为。无论是公共当局履行人权保护的职责还是对人权进行相关的解释适用,都要受到人权限制条款的制约。
文章第五章阐释了ACT人权法案的影响。这种影响不仅包括对首都地区的影响,还包括对于其他州区和联邦人权立法的示范性影响。ACT人权法案的实施在首都地区引发了传统权力关系的重构,它在一定程度上打破了在三权分立基础之上的立法机关、司法机关和行政机关之间的制衡关系,在立法机关、司法机关和行政机关之间形成一种“对话模式”,这种对话模式通过加强各个机关之间的互动和联系,为人权的保护提供了更为坚实的依托和凭靠。ACT人权法案的影响还体现在对于其他州区和联邦人权保护的示范性影响。其他州区在首都地区的影响下已经制定或者正在考虑制定符合本州区实际情况的人权法案。维多利亚州紧随其后制定了《人权与义务宪章》,新南威尔士州和北领地等州区也在进行着人权保护法典化的努力。ACT人权法案对于联邦人权保护的影响包括使得联邦政府更加关注土著居民人权的保障问题,并且让联邦更加明确地看到人权法案对于人权保护的积极作用。联邦政府制定的《人权框架》被认为是全国性人权法案出台的前奏和准备,预示着未来澳大利亚人权保护的总体走向。
尾论部分主要论述了ACT人权法案对于我国人权保护的启示。我国可以从立法、司法和行政三个方面借鉴澳大利亚首都地区人权保护的经验。在立法方面我国可以采用渐进、辐射式的人权保障方法,采用地方立法先行的模式；在司法方面要逐步将人权保护纳入到法律保护的轨道之中,为人权保护的可诉性提供法律支撑和司法保障；在行政方面应该尽快建立起国家人权机构,从机构设置上保障人权的实现。
This thesis has conducted research on the Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act. On the level of federal law in Australia, there are no specific clauses focusing on "rights protection". On the level of states law, the ACT Human Rights Act is the first Act to specify protecting human rights. This act occupies a pivotal position in the history of human rights protection in Australia by means of guaranteeing individual's human rights and limiting its powers. It is a milestone of the rights protection march and a symbol of maturity of the rights protection consciousness. The ACT Human Rights Act has absorbed other countries'human rights protection experiences and gradually enriched its contents. Based on these, the ACT Human Rights Act possesses its distinctive characteristics. This paper has researched on the ACT Human Rights Act by using analytical method except the introduction and conclusion parts.
The introduction part of this paper explains the significance of choosing this research topic, the research status quo in China and abroad on this topic, the framework of the thesis and the research method. This thesis mainly uses the view of historical development and law text to get into this topic. Trying to get inspiration from the ACT Human Rights Act and which could be a reference for perfecting human rights protection in China. Overseas countries, especially Australia have a long history in the research and practice of human rights protection. However, the research on human rights protection acts is still a blank area in China. In this sense, this thesis fills the blank in the research of this area. This paper starts analysis with introducing the background of human rights protection in Australia, then the legislative progress of the ACT and the main contents of it and gives an explanation of the effects in the Capital Territory and the nation.
The first chapter sets out the background of the adoption of the ACT Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Actwas significantly affected by UK and American Law. It adopted the Common Law system as well as Separation of Powers theory. Then, this thesis analysed the history of the efforts made of human rights protection from Australian Constitution, common law and regulation. Since the protection strengths from the Constitution are limited, the effects of common law and regulations are significant. However, there are limitations of common law in protecting human rights, so it is urgent to have a human rights protection law. The discussion on whether the federal level human rights protection law is necessary has lasted for several years. On one hand, the human rights protection law could systemize, clarify and make human rights protection lawful. On the other hand, it could set restrictions on the rights protection range and break "separation of the three powers" system. These arguments are the key factors of pushing the legislation of the ACT human rights Act.
There are always different opinions on human rights legislation; however, as the capital of Australia, Canberra set an example and issued the first Human Rights Act. The second chapter discussed the framework of the ACT Human Rights Act. The ACT Human Rights Act referred previous human rights legislation, which also absorbed many other international human rights acts. Given that different levels of previous human rights act, the ACT Human Rights Act has its unique features. In the form of law-setting, the ACT human right act absorbed many advantages, including demonstrations and limitations from other countries (the USA, Canada, New Zealand and UK). Absorbing and referring to the existing human right act legislation is the crucial feature of the ACT Human Rights Act. In terms of certain rights protection, the ACT Human Rights Act converted many international human rights acts, which then enable their legal effect in local area. The aforementioned part consists of the main section of the ACT Human Rights Act. It could grab the basic content of the ACT Human Rights actthrough discussing this framework and rights of those not involved in, which is mainly about economy, social and cultural rights and they are also needed to be protected in the amended act.
Chapter three gives an overall analysis of the rights of the ACT Human Rights Act protection and their application in the judicial practice. It is not hard to find that rights protection is the core of the ACT Human Rights Act and what it protects is the civil rights and political rights. This paper has selected five representative rights with high litigation frequency among twenty protected rights by The ACT Human Rights Act and they are fair trial, rights to liberty and security of person, the right of privacy and reputation, protection of family and children and rights in the criminal proceeding. Then, this paper researches how the judge explains and employs relevant provisions in the judicial practice to protect the human rights.
Chapter four discusses the interpretation clause of human rights, the restricted clause and the public authority,which composes of the important content of the ACT Human Rights Act. There are many rights under the protection of the ACT Human Rights Act, but the illustrations of human rights are infinitive. There are always limitations accompany with rights protection, all kinds of rights have their boundaries. Hence, it is critical to set limitations on human rights to maintain the balance of law. The interpretation clause specifies that the judge should accord with the bill of human rights in the interpretation of law. The ACT Human Rights Act has specified the boundaries and obligation of the public authority and listed the specific action against the human rights protection. The public authority i.e. the government should be regulated by the restricted clause of human rights in the practice of human rights protection and interpretation. Human rights may be subject only yo reasonable limits set by Territory law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and demoncratic society. However, in setting the limitations, all kinds of factors should also be taken into consideration, including the nature of the rights, the purpose of restriction, the boundary and the effect and so on.
The fifth charter discusses effects of the ACT Human Rights Act. These effects are not only on capital area but other states. The ACT Human Rights Act reconstructs the power's structure in capital area and breaks the balance of "separation of the three powers". It established a "dialogue model" between legislative authority, judicial authority and public authority. The dialogue model enhanced the relationships and interactions between these three authorities as well as building a solid foundation for human rights protection. Another effect of the ACT Human Rights Act is that it sets an example for other states, following the capital area, some states are considering of having their own human rights protection act. Such as Victoria States has publicized its Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, New South Wales and North Territory are fasting their legislation progress. With the more attentions on aboriginals' human rights protection makes the federal government see positive effects of the ACT Human Rights Act. The federal government of Australia has publicized its Australia' Human Rights Framework and it was be seen as a signal and preparation of a national human rights act. It had shown the future trend of human rights protection in Australia.
The last chapter mainly illustrates the enlightenment of our domestic human rights protection. We can learn lessons from Australia human rights protection from the legislation, the judiciary and the administration. In terms of the legislation, we can adopt step by step method to protect the human rights. In terms of the judiciary, we should bring the human rights protection into the protection of law and provide legal support and judicial guarantee for the human rights protection. In terms of the administration, the national human rights institution should be established to realize the guarantee of the human rights protection.
文章导论部分对选题意义、国内外研究现状、文章写作框架和研究方法进行介绍和阐释。文章主要从历史发展和法律文本的角度解读ACT人权法案,进而得出人权保护法典化的启示,试图为中国人权法律制度的建设和完善提供借鉴。国外尤其是澳大利亚本国对于这部人权法案的研究成果丰硕,而国内对于这部人权法案的研究尚属空白,因而此选题具有填补国内对于澳大利亚人权法律研究空白的价值和意义。文章先从澳大利亚人权保护的背景切入,接着分析ACT人权法案的制定经过和主要内容,最后阐释其在本地区和澳大利亚产生的影响。
文章第一章论述了澳大利亚的独特历史和权利保护状况。从澳大利亚独特的历史和多元民族文化中追溯权利保护的背景,继而阐释在大不列颠和美利坚的双重影响下的澳大利亚权利保护进路。澳大利亚继承英了国普通法的传统,遵循议会主权原则,又借鉴吸收了美国的三权分立思想,具有逐渐的成文宪法；接着分析澳大利亚普通法和制定法对于公民权利的保护状况。由于宪法对于权利保护的缺失,普通法和制定法对于人权的保护就显得尤为重要。而由于普通法对权利保护的局限性和间接性使得人们把权利保护的重任施加到制定法的专门保护上,这就需要制定一部人权法案来切实保障人权实现。在联邦层面展开了对于制定全国统一人权法案的大讨论,人权法案一方面可以使人权保护法律化、系统化和明确化,另一方面会限缩人权保护的应有范围,还会破坏基于三权分立基础之上的立法、司法和行政机关的制衡关系,这些是否有必要制定一部全国统一的人权法案争论,是制定ACT人权法案的推动因素,也是出台ACT人权法案的影响因素。
由于对制定全国性人权法案一直不能形成统一的意见,首都地区作为澳大利亚的政治中心,在人权保护领域起着引领性和风向标的作用,在全面考察分析首都地区的人权保护的实际状况之后首先尝试制定一部人权法案。本文第二章接着阐释ACT人权法案的基本框架。ACT人权法案通过对已有人权立法的借鉴,并将众多国际人权约法中的权利纳入到自身法律保护的范围之内。已有的人权立法有不同的效力等级,ACT人权法案采取了制定法的形式,借鉴吸收美国、加拿大、新西兰和英国等国家人权法律中的有益因子,包括权利保护的列举方式、对于人权限制条款的规定等内容。对于已有人权立法性质和内容的吸收借鉴是ACT人权法案的两大特点。在具体权利种类和内容的保护方面,ACT人权法案通过转化的方式,将诸多国际人权约法中的权利内容吸纳到法案之中,使它们在本地区内具有法律效力。对于已有人权立法的借鉴内容和对于国际人权约法的吸纳内容构成了ACT人权法案的重要组成部分。通过阐明ACT人权法案的基本架构和未纳入其中的权利,可以从总体上把握ACT人权法案的基本内容。这些未纳入到人权法案中的权利主要是经济、社会和文化权利,这些权利也有待在人权法案的修正案中得到确认和保护。
文章第三章着重阐释ACT人权法案保护的权利及其在司法实践中的适用。权利保护始终是人权法案的核心内容,ACT人权法案用二十个条款列举出人权保护的具体种类和详细内容,并且明示所保护的权利为公民权利和政治权利。文章试图从法案所保护的二十种权利中选取具有典型意义的权利作具体分析,从司法实践中诉讼频率较高的五种权利入手,分别阐释公正审判权、人身自由和安全权、隐私权和名誉权、家庭和儿童的权利以及刑事诉讼中的权利这五种权利的主要内涵；并结合相关案例,考察了法院在处理人权案件的诉讼中,法官如何以保护当事人的人权为基点来解释和运用相关条款。ACT人权法案规定的这些具体权利内容使得大部分人权具有可诉性,并且能够使法官在进行法律解释时更加从容地援引人权法案的相关条款。
文章第四章论述人权的限制条款和解释条款,并阐释了ACT人权法案规定的人权保护的义务主体是公共当局。人权的限制条款和解释条款和公共当局的人权保护义务构成了ACT人权法案的重要内容。任何权利都有边界,对人权进行必要的限制是维持法律平衡状态的必然要求。在自由和民主的社会中,人权只应受到法律合理的限制并且这种限制应当是绝对正确的。在对人权极其相应主体的行为进行合理限制的时候还应该综合考虑各种因素,包括权利的性质、限制的目的、范围和影响等。接着分析澳大利亚法律解释的特点和原则为人权解释条款的适用做理论上的铺垫。人权的解释条款规定,为了尽可能的和立法目的保持一致,法官在进行法律解释的时候需要与人权法案相一致。ACT人权法案对于公共当局的范围和义务做了明确的规定,规定公共当局的行为需要符合人权保护的要求,并且概括性地规定公共当局的哪些行为是违反人权保护义务的行为。无论是公共当局履行人权保护的职责还是对人权进行相关的解释适用,都要受到人权限制条款的制约。
文章第五章阐释了ACT人权法案的影响。这种影响不仅包括对首都地区的影响,还包括对于其他州区和联邦人权立法的示范性影响。ACT人权法案的实施在首都地区引发了传统权力关系的重构,它在一定程度上打破了在三权分立基础之上的立法机关、司法机关和行政机关之间的制衡关系,在立法机关、司法机关和行政机关之间形成一种“对话模式”,这种对话模式通过加强各个机关之间的互动和联系,为人权的保护提供了更为坚实的依托和凭靠。ACT人权法案的影响还体现在对于其他州区和联邦人权保护的示范性影响。其他州区在首都地区的影响下已经制定或者正在考虑制定符合本州区实际情况的人权法案。维多利亚州紧随其后制定了《人权与义务宪章》,新南威尔士州和北领地等州区也在进行着人权保护法典化的努力。ACT人权法案对于联邦人权保护的影响包括使得联邦政府更加关注土著居民人权的保障问题,并且让联邦更加明确地看到人权法案对于人权保护的积极作用。联邦政府制定的《人权框架》被认为是全国性人权法案出台的前奏和准备,预示着未来澳大利亚人权保护的总体走向。
尾论部分主要论述了ACT人权法案对于我国人权保护的启示。我国可以从立法、司法和行政三个方面借鉴澳大利亚首都地区人权保护的经验。在立法方面我国可以采用渐进、辐射式的人权保障方法,采用地方立法先行的模式；在司法方面要逐步将人权保护纳入到法律保护的轨道之中,为人权保护的可诉性提供法律支撑和司法保障；在行政方面应该尽快建立起国家人权机构,从机构设置上保障人权的实现。
This thesis has conducted research on the Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act. On the level of federal law in Australia, there are no specific clauses focusing on "rights protection". On the level of states law, the ACT Human Rights Act is the first Act to specify protecting human rights. This act occupies a pivotal position in the history of human rights protection in Australia by means of guaranteeing individual's human rights and limiting its powers. It is a milestone of the rights protection march and a symbol of maturity of the rights protection consciousness. The ACT Human Rights Act has absorbed other countries'human rights protection experiences and gradually enriched its contents. Based on these, the ACT Human Rights Act possesses its distinctive characteristics. This paper has researched on the ACT Human Rights Act by using analytical method except the introduction and conclusion parts.
The introduction part of this paper explains the significance of choosing this research topic, the research status quo in China and abroad on this topic, the framework of the thesis and the research method. This thesis mainly uses the view of historical development and law text to get into this topic. Trying to get inspiration from the ACT Human Rights Act and which could be a reference for perfecting human rights protection in China. Overseas countries, especially Australia have a long history in the research and practice of human rights protection. However, the research on human rights protection acts is still a blank area in China. In this sense, this thesis fills the blank in the research of this area. This paper starts analysis with introducing the background of human rights protection in Australia, then the legislative progress of the ACT and the main contents of it and gives an explanation of the effects in the Capital Territory and the nation.
The first chapter sets out the background of the adoption of the ACT Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Actwas significantly affected by UK and American Law. It adopted the Common Law system as well as Separation of Powers theory. Then, this thesis analysed the history of the efforts made of human rights protection from Australian Constitution, common law and regulation. Since the protection strengths from the Constitution are limited, the effects of common law and regulations are significant. However, there are limitations of common law in protecting human rights, so it is urgent to have a human rights protection law. The discussion on whether the federal level human rights protection law is necessary has lasted for several years. On one hand, the human rights protection law could systemize, clarify and make human rights protection lawful. On the other hand, it could set restrictions on the rights protection range and break "separation of the three powers" system. These arguments are the key factors of pushing the legislation of the ACT human rights Act.
There are always different opinions on human rights legislation; however, as the capital of Australia, Canberra set an example and issued the first Human Rights Act. The second chapter discussed the framework of the ACT Human Rights Act. The ACT Human Rights Act referred previous human rights legislation, which also absorbed many other international human rights acts. Given that different levels of previous human rights act, the ACT Human Rights Act has its unique features. In the form of law-setting, the ACT human right act absorbed many advantages, including demonstrations and limitations from other countries (the USA, Canada, New Zealand and UK). Absorbing and referring to the existing human right act legislation is the crucial feature of the ACT Human Rights Act. In terms of certain rights protection, the ACT Human Rights Act converted many international human rights acts, which then enable their legal effect in local area. The aforementioned part consists of the main section of the ACT Human Rights Act. It could grab the basic content of the ACT Human Rights actthrough discussing this framework and rights of those not involved in, which is mainly about economy, social and cultural rights and they are also needed to be protected in the amended act.
Chapter three gives an overall analysis of the rights of the ACT Human Rights Act protection and their application in the judicial practice. It is not hard to find that rights protection is the core of the ACT Human Rights Act and what it protects is the civil rights and political rights. This paper has selected five representative rights with high litigation frequency among twenty protected rights by The ACT Human Rights Act and they are fair trial, rights to liberty and security of person, the right of privacy and reputation, protection of family and children and rights in the criminal proceeding. Then, this paper researches how the judge explains and employs relevant provisions in the judicial practice to protect the human rights.
Chapter four discusses the interpretation clause of human rights, the restricted clause and the public authority,which composes of the important content of the ACT Human Rights Act. There are many rights under the protection of the ACT Human Rights Act, but the illustrations of human rights are infinitive. There are always limitations accompany with rights protection, all kinds of rights have their boundaries. Hence, it is critical to set limitations on human rights to maintain the balance of law. The interpretation clause specifies that the judge should accord with the bill of human rights in the interpretation of law. The ACT Human Rights Act has specified the boundaries and obligation of the public authority and listed the specific action against the human rights protection. The public authority i.e. the government should be regulated by the restricted clause of human rights in the practice of human rights protection and interpretation. Human rights may be subject only yo reasonable limits set by Territory law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and demoncratic society. However, in setting the limitations, all kinds of factors should also be taken into consideration, including the nature of the rights, the purpose of restriction, the boundary and the effect and so on.
The fifth charter discusses effects of the ACT Human Rights Act. These effects are not only on capital area but other states. The ACT Human Rights Act reconstructs the power's structure in capital area and breaks the balance of "separation of the three powers". It established a "dialogue model" between legislative authority, judicial authority and public authority. The dialogue model enhanced the relationships and interactions between these three authorities as well as building a solid foundation for human rights protection. Another effect of the ACT Human Rights Act is that it sets an example for other states, following the capital area, some states are considering of having their own human rights protection act. Such as Victoria States has publicized its Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, New South Wales and North Territory are fasting their legislation progress. With the more attentions on aboriginals' human rights protection makes the federal government see positive effects of the ACT Human Rights Act. The federal government of Australia has publicized its Australia' Human Rights Framework and it was be seen as a signal and preparation of a national human rights act. It had shown the future trend of human rights protection in Australia.
The last chapter mainly illustrates the enlightenment of our domestic human rights protection. We can learn lessons from Australia human rights protection from the legislation, the judiciary and the administration. In terms of the legislation, we can adopt step by step method to protect the human rights. In terms of the judiciary, we should bring the human rights protection into the protection of law and provide legal support and judicial guarantee for the human rights protection. In terms of the administration, the national human rights institution should be established to realize the guarantee of the human rights protection.
引文
③徐显明： 《法治的真谛是人权——一种人权史的解释》,载《学习与探索》,2001年第4期。
① Alice Erh-Soon Tay. Human rights for Australia:a survey of literature and developments, and a select and annotated bibliography of recent literature in Australia and abroad. Australian Government Publishing Service, 1986,p10.
①参见《ACT Human Rights Act》的第五章规定“政府的义务”,在2008年的修正案中,对政府部门的范围及其政府应该切实担负起的人权保护责任和义务进行了详细的规定。
② See Liz Curran. Human rights in Australia:their relevance to the vulnerable and marginalised. Alternative Law Joural; 33 (2) 2008,p70-74.
③ See Hannes Schoombe. The WA Human Rights Bill:for Brief; 34 (11) 2007,p35-38.
④ Cassidy Julie. Hollow avowals of human rights protection:time for an Australian federal bill of rights? Deakin Law Review; 13 (2) 2008,p1157.
⑤ http://www.cinon.com.au/Item/45611.aspx,2009年8月27日,访问时间11月26日。
① Tom Campbell. The Rule of Law and Strong Judicial Review: Controversies and Alternatives汤姆·坎普贝尔： 《法治与有力的司法审查——争论与选择》,第24届世界法哲学和社会哲学大会发言稿。在发言稿中还指出,我把它称之为“民主的权利法案”之要点总结如下： “民主的权利法案是国家的立法和行政活动途径制度化的法案,法院只有在实施这种有议会的人权立法时才涉入……民主权利法案的目标在于给体制施加压力,使其更好的对人权的思考做出反应。”
② See Hilary Charlesworth. Democratic objections to bills of rights. Sydney Papers; 20 (3) 2008,p124-133.
①See Peter Bayne.The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT):Developments in 2004. Canberra Law Review;(8)2005, p142.
②See Michael Walton. Human rights:what's been left out of Australia's first Bill of Rights? Alternative Law Journal; 29 (4) 2004,p195-196.
③ Thomas Poole. Bills of Rights in Australia. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal; 4 (2) 2004,p201.
① See Wendy Lacey. Beyond the legalese and rhetoric. Australian Journal of Human Rights. Butterworth, 16(1)2010,p1-13.
①何勤华主编： 《澳大利亚法律发达史》,法律出版社2004年8月版,第79页。
①《普列汉诺夫哲学著作选读》第一卷,第148页。
①Mark Twain, Following the Equator-A Journey Around the World, American Publishing Co.,Hartford 1897,p196.
①参见王宇博： 《澳大利亚现代化历史探析》,载《苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2004年第5期,第103—108页。
②黄源深、陈弘： 《从孤立中走向世界——澳大利亚文化简论》,浙江人民出版社1993年版第4页。
③韩锋、刘樊德主编： 《当代澳大利亚》,世界知识出版社2004年版第65页。
①参见[澳]帕瑞克·帕金森： 《澳大利亚法律的传统与发展》,陈苇译,斯尔姆森法律图书公司2005年版,第1-12页。
②同上引注,第97页。
①陈建福： 《比较法在澳大利亚法庭上的运用》, 载许章润、徐平： 《法律：理性与历史——澳大利亚的理念、制度与实践》,中国法制出版社2000年版, 第260页。
① Simon Bronitt and Prita Jobling, Constitutional Protection of Rights:Australian Exceptions, Legal Date,3(17)2005,p1-3.
②郑汝纯： 《普通法之正义意识》,陈建福译,载《比较法研究》,1998年版第4期,转引自中国人民大学书报资料中心： 《法理学、法史学》,D410,1999(4)。
③ Tucker,D.F.B., Natural Law or Common Law?:Human Rights in Australia.In Rethinking Human Rights, eds Brian Galligan and Charles Samoford. Sydney:Federation Press1997,p34.
①[英]梅因著： 《古代法》,沈景一译,商务印书馆1995年版,第19页。
① Louise Chappell, John Chesterman and Lisa Hill, The Politics of Human Rights in Australia, Cambridge University Press2009,p35-36.
②[英]W·lvor·詹宁斯： 《法与宪法》,龚祥瑞、侯健译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第7页。
① See M.Mckenna. The Captive Republic. Cambridge University Press1996,p190-192.
②Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act,s2.
③参见安东尼·梅森： 《联邦制国家宪法法院的地位与作用——对于澳大利亚与美国的比较研究》,载许章润、徐平： 《法律：历史与理性——澳大利亚的理念、制度与实践》,中国法制出版社2000年版,第157页。
①参见同上第165页。
② Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s24,41.
③ Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s116,117.
①[美]本杰明·卡多佐： 《司法过程的性质》,苏力译,商务印书馆1998年版,第17页。
②汤姆·坎贝尔和贝茨·坎贝尔： 《澳大利亚的法律和法律制度》,载《法学家》1998年第2期,第121页。
③Mabo v.The State of Queensland (No.2) (1992),in 175 Commonwealth Law Report s1.
② Sir Owen Dixon, Two Constitutions Compared' in Judge Woinarski (ed), Jesting Pilate and Other Papers and Addresses 1965,p 101-102.
③ Sir Robert Menzies. Central Power in the Australian Commonwealth (1967) 52,54. Through the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).
①John Howard, Address at Ceremonial Sitting to Mark the Centenary of the High Court of Australia, Supreme Court of Victoria, Melbourne,6 October 2003. Available at at 21 September 2007.
② See Hilary Charlesworth. Democratic objections to bills of rights. Sydney Papers; 20 (3) 2008,p124-133.
③ John Howard, A sense of balance:The Australian Achievement in 2006, Address to the National Press Club, Parliament House, Canberra,25 January 2006. Available at http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2006/speech1754.cfm at 21 September 2007.
④参见http://www.cinon.com.au/Item/45611.aspx,2009年8月27日,访问时间11月26日。
① See Wendy Lacey. Beyond the legalese and rhetoric. Australian Journal of Human Rights. Butterworth, 16(1)2010,p1-13.
① Peter Bayne.The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT):Developments in 2004. Canberra Law Review,(8)2005,p 142.
② Michael Walton. Human rights:what's been left out of Australia's first Bill of Rights? Alternative Law Journa1,29 (4) 2004,p195-196.
③ Thomas Poole. Bills of Rights in Australia.Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal,4 (2) 2004,p201.
① A bill of rights for Australia? (1989) 5 Australian Bar Review 79. For a more recent ccount of Mason's position, see Gareth Griffith, A NSW Charter of Rights? The Continuing Debate, NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, Briermg Paper No 5 (2006) p5,7-8.
②[澳]菲利普·林奇： 《人权、外交政策与发展：澳大利亚在国际和亚太地区的作用》,第二届北京人权论坛——和谐发展与人权发言稿,2009年11月。
① See Liz Curran,Human rights in Australia:their relevance to the vulnerable and marginalised. Alternative Law Joural; 33 (2) 2008,p70-74.
② See Hannes Schoombe. The WA Human Rights Bill:for.Brief,34 (11) 2007, p35-38.
③ Cassidy Julie. Hollow avowals of human rights protection:time for an Australian federal bill of rights? Deakin Law Review; 13 (2) 2008,p157.
④See Harry Evans, Monarchical and Parliamentary Government in Australia, Insurance Council of Australia Conference, Canberra,10 August 2006,2. Available on the Australian parliamentary website< http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/index.htm> at 21 September 2007.
①New South Wales v Commonwealth of Australia (2006) 231 ALR 1.
② George Williams, Goodbye to states rights, The Age (Melbourne),15 November 2006,17.
③ Quoted in Kenneth Nguyen, A weapon that may return to skewer the Liberals, conservatives warn, The Age (Melbourne),15 November 2006,2.
④ at 5October.2007.
⑤ See Susan Ryan, The New Matilda Human Rights Act Campaign (Paper presented at the conference, Australian Bills of Rights:The ACT and Beyond, AND,Canberra,21 June 2006); George Williams, The Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities(Paper presented at the conference, Australian Bills of Rights:The ACT and Beyond, AND, Canberra,21 June 2006).
⑥Brian Galligan & Ian McAllister, Citizen and Elite Attitudes towards an Australian Bill of Rights in Brian, Galligan & Charles Sampford (eds), Rethinking Human Rights (1997)p144-153.
① See Griffith, above n 10,2; NSW Parliament, Legislation Review Committee
② Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld) s 4(1).
① Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld) s 4(2)(a).
② Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld) ss 22,23,& 24. Democracy, and the Quality of Law-Making, in Tom Campbell,Jeffrey Goldsworth and Adrienne Stone (eds)
③ Bryan Horrigan, Improving Legislative Scrutiny of Proposed Laws to Enhance Basic Rights, Parliament above n 5,p61.
④ Griffith, above n 10, p69.
⑤ See Nicholas Aroney and Scott Prasser, Balancing the power:Queensland needs an upper house (2006) On Line Opinion at 7 November 2006.
①[澳]菲利普·林奇： 《人权、外交政策与发展：澳大利亚在国际和亚太地区的作用》,第二届北京人权论坛——和谐发展与人权发言稿,2009年11月。
①参见[澳]菲利普·林奇： 《人权、外交政策与发展：澳大利亚在国际和亚太地区的作用》,第二届北京人权论坛——和谐发展与人权发言稿,2009年11月。
②[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克著： 《自由秩序原理》,邓正来译,三联出版社1997年12月版,第234页。
①芦雪峰： 《英国1998年<人权法案>研究》,载《人权研究》(第六卷),山东人民出版社2007年版,第362页。
②[澳]菲利普·林奇： 《人权、外交政策与发展：澳大利亚在国际和亚太地区的作用》,第二届北京人权论坛——和谐发展与人权发言稿,2009年11月。
① Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedom)Bill 1988 (Cth).
② Legal and Constitutional Committee of the Victorian Government, Report on the Desirability or otherwise of Legislation Defining and Protecting Human Rights, Parliament of Victoria, April 1987.
③ NSW Standing Committee on Law and Justice, A NSW Bill of Rights, October 2001,NSW Parliament (Paper No.893).
④ ACT Attorney-General's Department, A Bill of Rights for the ACT:Record of Proceedings 7 May 1994.
⑤ ACT Bill of Rights Consultative Committee, Towards an ACT Human Rights Act (2003).
① Australian Bills of Rights-The ACT and Beyond (Speech delivered at the conference, Australian Bills of Rights: The ACT and Beyond, Canberra,21 June 2006.
①齐延平： 《自由大宪章研究》,中国政法大学出版版2007年版,第275-276页。
① Alston Philip, A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Bills of Rights, In Promoting Human Rights Through Bills of Rights:Comparative Perspective, ed. Philip Alston.Oxford University Press 1999,p113.
② Submission 44在首都地区《人权法案》起草的过程中,先后一共有148个组织和个人向首都地区法律咨询委员会提出建议,此注释为排序第44位的Dr.Max Spry的提案。
③ Janet McLean,Legislative invalidation, human rights protection and s4 of the New Zealand Bill of Bill of Right Act,New Zealand Review2001,p 421,448.
①Eg Frank Brennan, Legislating Liberty:A Bill of Rights for Australia (1998).
②Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom 1982, s1.
③加拿大于1867年建立自治领,成为英联邦的一部分。
④R v Drybones[1970] SCR 282.
①Attorney-General v Lavell[1974] SCR 1349.
② Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s 27.
③加拿大《权利和自由宪章》的适用范围包括整个联邦和各个省,但其第33条规定联邦或者省议会可以不顾宪章权利的规定而宣布适用自己的法律,这一条款通常意义上被认为是“尽管条款”。这是该宪章的一个亮点。
④ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom 1982,s24.
①New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990,s6.
②New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990,s4.
③英国宪法是“不成文的”,没有被列入一部“特别重要的”、统一的文件中,而是根深蒂固地存在于习惯和实践中,它的许多部分由不记录于任何庄严文件中的惯例所组成。但这并不是说宪法原则没有成文渊源,许多宪法原则来自于立法机关的法令或者法院的意见。但是这些法定成分在法律制度中没有特殊的地位,不优越于其他法律,可以如同其他法律一样以相同的方式被修改或者废除。
④Liversidge v.Anderson[1942]A.C.206,261(H.L.).
① (1982)148 Commonwealth Legal Report 636.
② (1982)39 Commonwealth Legal Report 459.
②(1998)159 Commonwealth Legal Report 108.
①信春鹰： 《栉风沐雨历久弥坚：纪念<世界人权宣言>通过五十周年》,载《读书》1998年第12期。
②邵沙平、余敏友主编： 《国际法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2004年版,第158页。转引自徐显明主编：《国际人权法》,法律出版社2004年第1版,第64-65页。
③[英]丹宁勋爵著： 《法律的未来》,刘庸安、张文镇译,法律出版社1999年版,第317页。
①参见边永民：《国际公法案例选》,对外经济贸易出版社2006年版,第57页。
①Human Rights Amendment Bill 2012 (ACT) s6.
②《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》,第1、6、7、10-13条。
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s28.
②联合国《儿童权利国际公约》(Convention on the Rights of the Child)最终于1989年11月20日在第44届联合国大会以第25号决议通过。1990年9月2日批准生效。截至目前有191个国家批准了该公约,是影响最为广泛的国际人权公约。
③ (1995) 152 Commonwealth Legal Report 436.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s11.
② Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s8(2),(3).
①Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,Preamble.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s32.
①龚向和： 《国际人权可诉性理论之缺失：中国人权司法保护之路》,载柳华文主编： 《经济、社会和文化权利可诉性研究》,中国社会科学出版社2008年版,第197页。
② Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context:Law, Politics, Morals, New York: Oxford University Press1996,p296.
③ Maurice Cranston, Human Rights, Real and Supposed, in D. D. Raphael (ed.),Political Theory and the Rights of Man, Indiana University Press 1967,p51-52.
① See Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights,General Comment No.3,1990, in HRJ/GEN/I /Rev·6,12 May,2003,p16.
② See Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v. Grootboom,2001 (1) SA 46 (CC),para.20.
①Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s21.
①张录荣： 《公正审判基本人权视野下的司法独立与司法受制》,载《法学研究》,2010年第4期。
②陈瑞华： 《程序正义的理论基础——评马修的“尊严价值”理论》,载《中国法学》,2003年第3期。
③陈兴华主编： 《法治的使命》, 《第二讲：陈瑞华,程序正义》,法律出版社2001年版,第36页。
①Stock v. Hyde [2006] ACTSC 11.
②Warren Gardner & Julie Beaver v. ACT Land Authority (Administrative Review) [2010] AC AT 64.
③ Kristen Egan, John Hawkins and Alexander Burr v. JG [2010] ACTSC 53.
④ R v. Matthew Massey [2009] ACTCA 12.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s18.
② GRC David, Magna Carta, Trustees of British Museum,London,1963.
①杨成铭： 《人权保护区域化的尝试——欧洲人权机构的视角》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第111页。
②于立深： 《我国宪法典公民权利条款评析》, 《长白学刊》2002年第4期,第28页。
③Eastman v. Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety [2011] ACTSC 33.
①R v. Kain [2009] ACTSC 103.
② Tahi Temoannui v. Brett Jason Eric Ford [2009] ACTSC 69.
①Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s12.
①澳大利亚法律改革委员会是一个独立的法定组织,在司法部长的要求下进行法律改革等相关问题的研究和调查。
②(2008)3 Australia Legal Reform Commission Report 291.
①Daniel Emlyn-Jones and Federal Capital Press [Intervener:Human Rights Commission] [2009] ACTDT 2.
②Thomson v. ACT Planning and Land Authority (Administrative Review) [2009] ACAT 38.
③ R v. Jonathon Monaghan [2009] ACTSC 61.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s11.
① TM v. Office of Children, Youth and Family Support [2007] ACTSC 5.
② Canberra Fathers and Children Services Inc v. Michael Watson [2010] AC AT 74.
③ R v. Ashman [2010] ACTSC 45.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s22.
② Richard John Travini v. Woitek Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123.
③ R v. Martiniello [2005] ACTSC 9.
①R v.BR[2010]ACTSC 17.
①Human Rights Amendment Act 2008 (ACT) s4.
②[英]亚当·斯密：《国富论》,宗裕民编著,南海出版社2008年版,第245页。
①汪进元、陈乒： 《权利限制的立宪模式之比较》,载《法学评论》2005年第5期,第10页。
②夏勇： 《权利哲学的基本问题》,载《法学研究》2004年第3期。
③[美]路易斯·亨金： 《权利的时代》,信春鹰等译,知识出版社1997年版,第6页。
①中国人权研究会： 《人民日报理论版》,2005年6月6日第9版。
②毛俊响： 《国际人权公约权利限制的基本原则及对中国的启示》,载《政治与法律》,2010年第9期。
①The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.7,1985,p.4.para.9.
② See Alexandre Kiss, Commentary by the Rapporteur on the Limitation Provisions, in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.7,1985, p16.
① Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s13.
② Esin Orucu, The Core of Rights and Freedoms:the Limit of Limits. Human Rights:From Rhetoric to Reality. ed.Tom Campbell. Basil Blackwell1986,p37.
③ See General Comment 27, CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.9,paras.12-13.
④ See Malone v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, Judgment of 2 August 1984. Series A, No.82, para.67.
⑤ See Inter-American Court Of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion Oc-6/86 Of May 9, The Word "Laws" In Article 30 Of The American Convention On Human Rights, Requested By The Government Of Uruguay 1986,paras.7-37.
⑥ Akuna Club Limited and ACT Gambling and Racing Commission (Administrative Review) [2010] ACAT 3.
①张文显主编： 《法理学》,法律出版社1997年版,第376页。
②张志铭著： 《中国的法律解释体制》,载《中国社会科学》,1997年第2期。
③季卫东著： 《法治秩序的建构》,中国政法大学出版社1998年版,第87—88页。
①Stephen,Re Castioni[1891]1 B 149,167-168.
②Carleton Kemp Allen,Aspects of Justics,Stevens & Son1958,p184.
③参见[澳]帕克瑞·帕金森： 《澳大利亚法律的传统与发展》,陈苇译,斯尔姆森法律图书出版公司2005年版,第257页。
①转引自张文显：《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社1996年版,第129页。
②宁敏： 《澳大利亚1901年法律解释法——对议会制定的法律进行解释并缩短其语言的法律》,载《民商法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社1999年版,第755页。
③陈金钊： 《案例指导制度下的法律解释及其意义》,载《苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2011年第2期。
④转引自章启群：《意义的本体论——哲学诠释学》,上海译文出版社2002年版,第77页。
⑤ Hilary Charlesworth and Gabrielle McKinnon. Australia's First Bill of Rights:The Australian Capital Territory's Human Rights Act. The Federation Press2006,p7.
①Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s31(1).
②Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s31(2).
③ Firestone v. The Australian National University [2004] ACTSC76.
① Maunsell v. Olins,[1995] AC373,382,per Lord Reid.
② See Bropho v. The State of West Australia,(1990)171 Commonwealth Legal Report l,at 20.
① ACT Parliament Debate, Legislative Assembly,6 December2007,4031 (Simon Corbell).
② Imran Hakimi v. Legal Aid Commission (ACT),The Australian Capital Territory (Intervener) [2009] ACTSC 48.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s22.(2)bd.
② See Hakimi (2009) 3 ACTLR 127,137.
① ACT Human Rights Act 2004,s40B.
②同上引注。
③ ACT Human Rights Act 2004-The First Year, Paper presented at the conference "Assessing the First Year of the ACT Human Rights Act",29 June 2005,p6.
①The ACT Human Rights Act-The Second Year, Paper presented at the conference,21 June 2006,p14.
② ACT Human Rights Act 2004,s40(1).
① Council of Australian Government, Council of Australian Governments Communique:Special meeting on counter-terrorism(2005), available at http://www.coag.gov.au.
① ACT Human Rights Act 2004,s37.
② See ACT Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on Legal Affairs, Legislative Assembly for the ACT, Comments on the Responses Scrutiny Report No 3 (2009).
③ Australian Government, Australia's Human Rights Framework (2010).
④ ACT Human Rights Act 2004,s38.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s31.
① Explanatory Statement, Human Rights Act Amendment Bill 2007 (ACT) c3.
② Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s32.
④ See http://acthra.anu.edu.au/cases/case.php?id=291,访问时间2011年9月10日。
③Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s33.
① Constitutional Connnission, above n 28,460.
②同上引注。
③ Constitution Connnission Victoria, Final Report:A House for Our Future, Terms of Reference (2002) 5 Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet. at 15 November 2006.
① Department of Justice, Victoria, Human Rights in Victoria:Statement of Intent(2005).
②同上引注。
③ Fergus Shiel,'State accused of reneging on human rights charter', The Age (Melbourne),20 June 2005,5.
④ Charter ofHuman Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic),s7.
⑤ Charter ofHuman Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic),s39(3).
① Standing Committee on Law and Justice, NSW Legislative Council, A NSW Bill of Rights (2001).
② Standing Committee on Law and Justice, NSW Legislative Council, A NSW Bill of Rights (2001)110.
③ Standing Committee on Law and Justice, NSW Legislative Council, A NSW Bill of Rights (2001)98.
④ Standing Committee on Law and Justice, NSW Legislative Council, A NSW Bill of Rights (2001)86.
⑤Jonathan Pearlman, Charter of rights plan to be put to cabine, Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney),20 March 2006.
① Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development, Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, Final Draft Constitution for the Northern Territory (1996) pt 8.
② Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, Milestones in the Constitutional History of the Northern Territory 1824-2005.s6.3.
①Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s 27.
① (1992)107 Commonwealth Legal Report 6,18.
②See Bain Attwood and Fiona Magowan (ed.),Telling Stoies-Indigenous history and memory in Australia and New Zealand, Allen & Unw 2001, p 200-203.
③ Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution,10th edu.Macmillan1959,p195-202.Compare this with E.Barendt,Dicey and Civil Liberties[19851 Public Law 596;W.I.Jennings,The Law and the Constitution,5th edn,University of London Press1959.
David Malcolm,Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?'(1998) 5(3) E Law Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law [1] at 15 November 2006.
Constitutional Commission, Commonwealth, Final Report of the Constitutional Commission, Volume One (1988), p456.
① (1959) 47,328, quoted by the Constitutional Commission.
② Constitutional Commission,above n 28, p456.
③ The proposals were contained in the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms)Bill 1988 (Cth), and the referendum was held on 3 September 1988. Australian Parliamentary Library, Attempts at a federal Bill of Rights at 27 February 2006.
④ Malcohn, above n 27,1. See also the report of the Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development, Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, A Northern Territory Bill of Rights? (1995) 10.
①Malcohn Farr, State rights push wrong-Ruddock slams campaign, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney),4(7)2006,p 17.
②参见朱应平： 《澳大利亚宪法权利研究》,法律出版社2006年版第32页。
①李步云： 《论人权》,社会科学文献出版社2010年版,第1页。
②徐显明,齐延平：《中国人权制度建设的五大主题》,载《文史哲》,2002年第4期,第45页。
①姚建宗： 《建设社会主义和谐社会与认真对待人权》,载《长春理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,2008年第5期,第2页。
②徐显明,齐延平：《中国人权制度建设的五大主题》,载《文史哲》,2002年第4期,第45页。
①李步云： 《论人权》,社会科学文献出版社2010年版,第213页。
②[美]霍贝尔： 《原始人的法》,严存生等译, 贵州人民出版社1992年版,第4、5页。
1. Alice Erh-Soon Tay. Human rights for Australia:a survey of literature and developments, and a select and annotated bibliography of recent literature in Australia and abroad. Australian Government Publishing Service,1986.
2.Alston Philip. Promoting human rights through bills of rights:Comparative Perspectives. Oxford University Press,1999.
3.Andrew Byrnes, Hilary Charlesworth and Gabrielle McKinnon. Bills of Rights in Australia:History, Politics and Law. University of New South Wales Press,2009.
4.Christian Tomuschat. Human rights:between idealism and realism. Oxford University Press,2008.
5.Daniel Moeckli,Sangeeta Shah,Sandesh Sivakumaran.International human rights law,Oxford University Press,2010.
6.Fredman Sandra. Human rights transformed:positive rights and positive duties. Oxford University Press,2008.
7.George Williams, Human Rights under the Australian Constitution, Oxford University Press,2002
8.Hilary Charlesworth and Gabrielle McKinnon. Australia's first bill of rights: the Australian Capital Territory's Human Rights Act. Centre for International and Public Law, Faculty of Law, Australian National University,2006.
9.Hilary Charlesworth. Towards an Australian bill of rights.Report of the ACT Bill of Rights Consultative Committee,2003.
10.Human Rights Commission. The Right of peaceful assembly in the ACT. Australian Government Public Service,1985.
11. James W.Nickel.Making Sense of Human Rights.Blackwell Publishing,2007.
12.Kamenka Eugene. Rights, human rights and the rights of peoples.Department of Jurisprudence, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, for the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy,1993.
13.Kinley David. Human rights in Australian law:principles, practice and potential. The Federation Press,1998.
14.Louise Chappell,John Chesterman and Lisa Hill.The politics of human rights in Australia.Cambridge University Press,2009.
15.Mason Anthony.Human rights and Australian judges. Centre for International and Public Law,1996.
16.M.Mckenna. The Captive Republic. Cambridge University Press,1996.
17.Maurice Cranston.Human Rights, Real and Supposed, in D. D. Raphael (ed.), Political Theory and the Rights of Man, Indiana University Press,1967.
18.Nettheim Garth. Aborigines, human rights and the law. Sydney:Australia & New Zealand Book Company [in conjunction with the] International Commission of Jurists (Australian Division),1974.
19.Peter Bailey. Human rights:Australia in an International Context. Butterworths,1990.
20.Peter Bailey.The Human Rights Enterprise in Australia and Internationally. Butterworth,2009.
21.Philip Alston.Toward an Australian Bill of Rights.Centre for International and Pubilc Law Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission,1994.
22.Republicanism, responsible government and human rights. Canberra: Department of the Senate,1995.
23.Richard Clayton,Hugh Tomlinson,The law of human rights (Second annual supplement),Oxford University Press,2003.
24. Sam Garkawe, Loretta Kelly, Warwick Fisher. Indigenous human rights. Institute of Criminology, Sydney University Law School,2001.
25.Sir Owen Dixon, Two Constitutions Compared'in Judge Woinarski (ed), Jesting Pilate and Other Papers and Addresses,1965.
26.Stuart Kaye and Ryszard Piotrowicz.Human Rights in International and Australian Law. Butterworths,2000.
27.Tom Campbell,David Goldberg,Shelia McLean and Tom Mullen. Human rights:From Rhetoric to Reality. Basil Blackwell,1986.
1.Angela Ward.Checks and balances:the importance of a bill of rights. Precednt; (68)2005.
2.Anthony Lester. The judicial protection of human rights in the Commonwealth. Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education; 1(1) 2001.
3.Bronwyn Naylor and Bernadette Saunders. Whose rights? Children, parents and discipline. Alternative Law Journal; 34 (2) 2009.
4.Benion Francis. Human rights:a threat to law? University of New South Wales Law Journal; 26(2)2003.
5.Brian Galligan and Emma Larking. Rights protection:the Bill of Rights debate and rights protection in Australia's states and territories. Adelaide Law Review; 28(1-2) 2007.
6.Carolyn Evans. Responsibility for rights:the ACT Human Rights Act. Federal Law Review; 32 (2) 2004.
7.Cassidy Julie. Hollow avowals of human rights protection:time for an Australian federal bill of rights? Deakin Law Review; 13 (2) 2008.
8.Dalla-Pozza.Dominique and Williams, George. The constitutional validity of declarations of incompatibility in Australian charters of rights. Deakin Law Review; 12 (1)2007.
9.David K Malcolm. A Human rights Act for,Australia. University of North Dame Australia Law Review; 12(8) 2006.
10.Davis Megan and George Williams. A statutory Bill of Rights for Australia? Lessons from the United Kingdom. University of Queensland Law Journal; 22 (1) 2002.
11.Dignity, fairness and good government:the role of a human rights act. Alternative Law Journal; 34(2)2009.
12.Elizabeth Kelly. Human rights Act 2004:a new dawn for rights protection? Aial Forum; 4(41)2004.
13.Geoff Mclay. Damages for breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights:why aren't they sufficient remedy? New Zealand Law Review; (2) 2008.
14.George Williams. Lessons from Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Law Society Journal; 45 (1) 2007.
15.Greg Craven. The WA Human Rights Bill:against. Brief; 34 (11) 2007.
16.Government re-evaluates human rights protections.Tirohia Focus; 6(2) 2000.
17.Hilary Charlesworth. Democratic objections to bills of rights. Sydney Papers; 20 (3) 2008.
18.Hilary Charlesworth. Who wins under a bill of rights?University of Queensland Law Journal;25 (1) 2006.
19.Human Rights Act intellectual shake up for Scots. Law Society Journal.38 (10)2000.
20.Human rights principles in the HRA. Hot topics; 4(54) 2005.
21. James Allan. The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities exegesis and criticism. Melbourne University Law Review;30 (3) 2007.
22.James Stellios.Federal dimensions to the ACT Human Rights Act. Aial Forum; (47)2005.
23 Jim South. Potential constitutional and statutory limitations on the scope of the interpretative obligation imposed by s 32(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). University of Queensland Law Journal; 28(1)2009.
24.JJ Spigelman. Keynote address:access to justice and human rights treaties. Sydney Law Review; 22 (1) 2000.
25.John Dawson. Community treatment orders and human rights. Law In Context; 26(2)2008.
26.Jon Stanhope. The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT):making a stand in the ACT. Alternative Law Journal; 30(2)2005.
27.Julie Ebeljak. Rights protection without judicial supremacy:a review of the Canadian and British models of Bills of Rights. Melbourne University Law Review; 26(2)2002.
28.Julie Taylor. Human rights protection in Australia:interpretation provisions and parliamentary supremacy. Federal Law Review; 32 (1) 2004.
29.Kate Eastman and Lex Lasry. Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 (Cth) and the Human Rights Act (2004) ACT. University of Western Sydney Law Review; (9) 2005.
30.Lara Kostakidis-Lianos and George Williams. Bills of responsibilities:is one needed to counter the 'excesses' of the ACT Human Rights Act 2004? Alternative Law Journal; 30 (2) 2005.
31.Liz Curran. Human rights in Australia:their relevance to the vulnerable and marginalised. Alternative Law Joural; 33 (2) 2008.
32.Max Spry. The ACT Human Rights Bill 2003:A brief survey. Aial Forum; (41) 2004.
33..Michael Stanton. Fighting phantoms:a democratic defence of human rights legislation. Alternative Law Journal; 32 (3) 2007.
34.Michael Walton. Human rights:what's been left out of Australia's first Bill of Rights? Alternative Law Journal; 29 (4) 2004.
35.New year, New Act, New Commission. Tirohia Focus; (1) 2002.
36.Nick Carney.The ethical dimensions of a human rights act for Australia. Living Ethics; (62) 2005.
37.Peter Bayne.The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).Developments in 2004. Canberra Law Review;(8)2005.
38.Simon Bronitt and Prita Jobling, Constitutional Protection of Rights: Australian Exceptions, Legal Date,3(17)2005
39.Rachel Ball. Outside classrooms and courtrooms:the good news on human rights. Alternative Law Journal; 34 (2) 2009.
40. Rashda Rana. The implications for commercial practice in a future bill of rights. Commercial Law Quarterly; 22 (2) 2008.
41.Royden Hindle. Rights against legislated discrimination:a sleeping giant? Part IA of the Human Rights Act 1993. New Zealand Law Review; 1 (2) 2008.
42.Scott Guy and Barbara Ann Hocking. Times of pestilence:would a Bill of Rights assist Australian citizens who are quarantined in the event of an avian influenza (bird flu) pandemic? Current Issues In Criminal. Justice; 17 (3) 2006.
43.Sean Moysey and John Paget. A prison built on human rights. Precedent; (81)2007.
44.Simeon Beckett. Interpreting legislation consistently with human rights. AIAL Forum;9(58) 2008.
45.Simon Bronitt and Prita Jobling. Constitutional protection of rights:the Australian exceptions. Legaldate; 17 (3) 2005.
46. Stefanie Wilkins. Constitutional limits on bills of rights introduced by a state or territory. Federal Law Review; 35 (3) 2007.
47.Tanya Aplin. Breach of confidence and privacy:the impact of the Human Rights Act.Intellectual Property Forum:Journal of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and NZ;9 (50) 2002.
4S.The Human Rights Bill:is a Human Rights Act a good idea for WA? Brief:33(11)2006.
49.Thomas Poole. Bills of Rights in Australia. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal; 4 (2) 2004.
50.Tom Campbell. Does anyone win under a bill of rights? A response to Hilary Charlesworth's'Who wins under a bill of rights? University of Queensland Law Journal; 25 (1) 2006.
51.Victoria Gregory. Mainstreaming human rights in the public sector. Tirohia Focus; 2(1)2003.
1.朱应平著： 《澳大利亚宪法权利研究》,法律出版社2006年版。
2.许章润、徐平编： 《法律：理性与历史——澳大利亚的理念、制度和实践》,中国法制出版社2000年版。
3.蒋为廉著： 《普通法和公平法原则概要：澳大利亚著名案例选注》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
4.王宇博： 《澳大利亚——在移植中再造》,四川人民出版社2000年版。
5.徐显明主编： 《人权研究》(第1-11卷),山东人民出版社。
6.齐延平著： 《人权与法治》,山东人民出版社2003年版。
7.齐延平著： 《自由大宪章研究》,中国政法大学出版社2007年版。
8.王德华著： 《澳大利亚：从移民社会到现代社会》,上海科学院出版社1997年版。
9.季卫东著： 《法治秩序的建构》,中国政法大学出版社,1998年版。
10.杨成铭： 《人权保护区域化的尝试——欧洲人权机构的视角》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
11.张文显主编： 《法理学》,法律出版社1997年版。
12.李步云： 《论人权》,科学文献出版社2010年版。
13.何勤华： 《澳大利亚法律发达史》,法律出版社2004年版。
14.黄源深,陈弘： 《从孤立中走向世界——澳大利亚文化简论》,浙江人民出版社1993年版。
15.张天： 《澳洲史》,社会科学文献出版社1996年版。
16.徐显明主编： 《国际人权法》,法律出版社2004年。
17.[澳]帕瑞克·帕金森著,陈苇译： 《澳大利亚法律的传统与发展》(第三版),西南政法大学外国家庭及妇女理论研究中心2008年印制。
18.[澳]戈登·格林伍德编： 《澳大利亚政治社会史》,北京编译社编译,商务印书馆1960年版。
19.[澳]杰弗里·博尔顿： 《澳大利亚历史》,李尧译,北京出版社1993年版。
20.[英]休谟： 《人性论》,潘华志编著,人民出版社2010年版。
21.[英]亚当·斯密： 《国富论》,宗裕民编著,南海出版社2008年版。
22.[英]A.J.M.米尔恩： 《人的权利与人的多样性》,夏勇、张志铭译,中国大百科全书出版社 1997年版。
23.[英]丹宁勋爵著： 《法律的未来》,刘庸安、张文镇译,法律出版社1999年版
24.[美]本杰明·卡多佐： 《司法过程的性质》,苏力译,商务印书馆1998年版。
25.王宇博： 《对澳大利亚公民权利概念与实践的历史考察》,载《法制现代化研究》(第十卷)。
26.汪进元、陈乒： 《权利限制的立宪模式之比较》,载《法学评论》2005年第5期。
27.夏勇： 《权利哲学的基本问题》,载《法学研究》2004年第3期。
28.张志铭： 《中国的法律解释体制》,载《中国社会科学》,1997年第2期。
29.陈瑞华： 《程序正义的理论基础——评马修的“尊严价值理论”》,载《中国法学》,2003年第3期。
30.龚向和： 《国际人权可诉性理论之缺失： 中国人权司法保护之路》载柳华文主编： 《经济、社会和文化权利可诉性研究》,中国社会科学出版社2008年版。
31.徐显明、齐延平： 《中国人权制度建设的五大主题》,载《文史哲》,2004年第4期。
32.姚建宗： 《建设社会主义和谐社会与认真对待人权》,载《长春理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,2008年第5期。
① Alice Erh-Soon Tay. Human rights for Australia:a survey of literature and developments, and a select and annotated bibliography of recent literature in Australia and abroad. Australian Government Publishing Service, 1986,p10.
①参见《ACT Human Rights Act》的第五章规定“政府的义务”,在2008年的修正案中,对政府部门的范围及其政府应该切实担负起的人权保护责任和义务进行了详细的规定。
② See Liz Curran. Human rights in Australia:their relevance to the vulnerable and marginalised. Alternative Law Joural; 33 (2) 2008,p70-74.
③ See Hannes Schoombe. The WA Human Rights Bill:for Brief; 34 (11) 2007,p35-38.
④ Cassidy Julie. Hollow avowals of human rights protection:time for an Australian federal bill of rights? Deakin Law Review; 13 (2) 2008,p1157.
⑤ http://www.cinon.com.au/Item/45611.aspx,2009年8月27日,访问时间11月26日。
① Tom Campbell. The Rule of Law and Strong Judicial Review: Controversies and Alternatives汤姆·坎普贝尔： 《法治与有力的司法审查——争论与选择》,第24届世界法哲学和社会哲学大会发言稿。在发言稿中还指出,我把它称之为“民主的权利法案”之要点总结如下： “民主的权利法案是国家的立法和行政活动途径制度化的法案,法院只有在实施这种有议会的人权立法时才涉入……民主权利法案的目标在于给体制施加压力,使其更好的对人权的思考做出反应。”
② See Hilary Charlesworth. Democratic objections to bills of rights. Sydney Papers; 20 (3) 2008,p124-133.
①See Peter Bayne.The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT):Developments in 2004. Canberra Law Review;(8)2005, p142.
②See Michael Walton. Human rights:what's been left out of Australia's first Bill of Rights? Alternative Law Journal; 29 (4) 2004,p195-196.
③ Thomas Poole. Bills of Rights in Australia. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal; 4 (2) 2004,p201.
① See Wendy Lacey. Beyond the legalese and rhetoric. Australian Journal of Human Rights. Butterworth, 16(1)2010,p1-13.
①何勤华主编： 《澳大利亚法律发达史》,法律出版社2004年8月版,第79页。
①《普列汉诺夫哲学著作选读》第一卷,第148页。
①Mark Twain, Following the Equator-A Journey Around the World, American Publishing Co.,Hartford 1897,p196.
①参见王宇博： 《澳大利亚现代化历史探析》,载《苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2004年第5期,第103—108页。
②黄源深、陈弘： 《从孤立中走向世界——澳大利亚文化简论》,浙江人民出版社1993年版第4页。
③韩锋、刘樊德主编： 《当代澳大利亚》,世界知识出版社2004年版第65页。
①参见[澳]帕瑞克·帕金森： 《澳大利亚法律的传统与发展》,陈苇译,斯尔姆森法律图书公司2005年版,第1-12页。
②同上引注,第97页。
①陈建福： 《比较法在澳大利亚法庭上的运用》, 载许章润、徐平： 《法律：理性与历史——澳大利亚的理念、制度与实践》,中国法制出版社2000年版, 第260页。
① Simon Bronitt and Prita Jobling, Constitutional Protection of Rights:Australian Exceptions, Legal Date,3(17)2005,p1-3.
②郑汝纯： 《普通法之正义意识》,陈建福译,载《比较法研究》,1998年版第4期,转引自中国人民大学书报资料中心： 《法理学、法史学》,D410,1999(4)。
③ Tucker,D.F.B., Natural Law or Common Law?:Human Rights in Australia.In Rethinking Human Rights, eds Brian Galligan and Charles Samoford. Sydney:Federation Press1997,p34.
①[英]梅因著： 《古代法》,沈景一译,商务印书馆1995年版,第19页。
① Louise Chappell, John Chesterman and Lisa Hill, The Politics of Human Rights in Australia, Cambridge University Press2009,p35-36.
②[英]W·lvor·詹宁斯： 《法与宪法》,龚祥瑞、侯健译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第7页。
① See M.Mckenna. The Captive Republic. Cambridge University Press1996,p190-192.
②Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act,s2.
③参见安东尼·梅森： 《联邦制国家宪法法院的地位与作用——对于澳大利亚与美国的比较研究》,载许章润、徐平： 《法律：历史与理性——澳大利亚的理念、制度与实践》,中国法制出版社2000年版,第157页。
①参见同上第165页。
② Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s24,41.
③ Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s116,117.
①[美]本杰明·卡多佐： 《司法过程的性质》,苏力译,商务印书馆1998年版,第17页。
②汤姆·坎贝尔和贝茨·坎贝尔： 《澳大利亚的法律和法律制度》,载《法学家》1998年第2期,第121页。
③Mabo v.The State of Queensland (No.2) (1992),in 175 Commonwealth Law Report s1.
② Sir Owen Dixon, Two Constitutions Compared' in Judge Woinarski (ed), Jesting Pilate and Other Papers and Addresses 1965,p 101-102.
③ Sir Robert Menzies. Central Power in the Australian Commonwealth (1967) 52,54. Through the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).
①John Howard, Address at Ceremonial Sitting to Mark the Centenary of the High Court of Australia, Supreme Court of Victoria, Melbourne,6 October 2003. Available at
② See Hilary Charlesworth. Democratic objections to bills of rights. Sydney Papers; 20 (3) 2008,p124-133.
③ John Howard, A sense of balance:The Australian Achievement in 2006, Address to the National Press Club, Parliament House, Canberra,25 January 2006. Available at http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2006/speech1754.cfm at 21 September 2007.
④参见http://www.cinon.com.au/Item/45611.aspx,2009年8月27日,访问时间11月26日。
① See Wendy Lacey. Beyond the legalese and rhetoric. Australian Journal of Human Rights. Butterworth, 16(1)2010,p1-13.
① Peter Bayne.The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT):Developments in 2004. Canberra Law Review,(8)2005,p 142.
② Michael Walton. Human rights:what's been left out of Australia's first Bill of Rights? Alternative Law Journa1,29 (4) 2004,p195-196.
③ Thomas Poole. Bills of Rights in Australia.Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal,4 (2) 2004,p201.
① A bill of rights for Australia? (1989) 5 Australian Bar Review 79. For a more recent ccount of Mason's position, see Gareth Griffith, A NSW Charter of Rights? The Continuing Debate, NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, Briermg Paper No 5 (2006) p5,7-8.
②[澳]菲利普·林奇： 《人权、外交政策与发展：澳大利亚在国际和亚太地区的作用》,第二届北京人权论坛——和谐发展与人权发言稿,2009年11月。
① See Liz Curran,Human rights in Australia:their relevance to the vulnerable and marginalised. Alternative Law Joural; 33 (2) 2008,p70-74.
② See Hannes Schoombe. The WA Human Rights Bill:for.Brief,34 (11) 2007, p35-38.
③ Cassidy Julie. Hollow avowals of human rights protection:time for an Australian federal bill of rights? Deakin Law Review; 13 (2) 2008,p157.
④See Harry Evans, Monarchical and Parliamentary Government in Australia, Insurance Council of Australia Conference, Canberra,10 August 2006,2. Available on the Australian parliamentary website< http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/index.htm> at 21 September 2007.
①New South Wales v Commonwealth of Australia (2006) 231 ALR 1.
② George Williams, Goodbye to states rights, The Age (Melbourne),15 November 2006,17.
③ Quoted in Kenneth Nguyen, A weapon that may return to skewer the Liberals, conservatives warn, The Age (Melbourne),15 November 2006,2.
④
⑤ See Susan Ryan, The New Matilda Human Rights Act Campaign (Paper presented at the conference, Australian Bills of Rights:The ACT and Beyond, AND,Canberra,21 June 2006); George Williams, The Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities(Paper presented at the conference, Australian Bills of Rights:The ACT and Beyond, AND, Canberra,21 June 2006).
⑥Brian Galligan & Ian McAllister, Citizen and Elite Attitudes towards an Australian Bill of Rights in Brian, Galligan & Charles Sampford (eds), Rethinking Human Rights (1997)p144-153.
① See Griffith, above n 10,2; NSW Parliament, Legislation Review Committee
② Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld) s 4(1).
① Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld) s 4(2)(a).
② Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld) ss 22,23,& 24. Democracy, and the Quality of Law-Making, in Tom Campbell,Jeffrey Goldsworth and Adrienne Stone (eds)
③ Bryan Horrigan, Improving Legislative Scrutiny of Proposed Laws to Enhance Basic Rights, Parliament above n 5,p61.
④ Griffith, above n 10, p69.
⑤ See Nicholas Aroney and Scott Prasser, Balancing the power:Queensland needs an upper house (2006) On Line Opinion
①[澳]菲利普·林奇： 《人权、外交政策与发展：澳大利亚在国际和亚太地区的作用》,第二届北京人权论坛——和谐发展与人权发言稿,2009年11月。
①参见[澳]菲利普·林奇： 《人权、外交政策与发展：澳大利亚在国际和亚太地区的作用》,第二届北京人权论坛——和谐发展与人权发言稿,2009年11月。
②[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克著： 《自由秩序原理》,邓正来译,三联出版社1997年12月版,第234页。
①芦雪峰： 《英国1998年<人权法案>研究》,载《人权研究》(第六卷),山东人民出版社2007年版,第362页。
②[澳]菲利普·林奇： 《人权、外交政策与发展：澳大利亚在国际和亚太地区的作用》,第二届北京人权论坛——和谐发展与人权发言稿,2009年11月。
① Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedom)Bill 1988 (Cth).
② Legal and Constitutional Committee of the Victorian Government, Report on the Desirability or otherwise of Legislation Defining and Protecting Human Rights, Parliament of Victoria, April 1987.
③ NSW Standing Committee on Law and Justice, A NSW Bill of Rights, October 2001,NSW Parliament (Paper No.893).
④ ACT Attorney-General's Department, A Bill of Rights for the ACT:Record of Proceedings 7 May 1994.
⑤ ACT Bill of Rights Consultative Committee, Towards an ACT Human Rights Act (2003).
① Australian Bills of Rights-The ACT and Beyond (Speech delivered at the conference, Australian Bills of Rights: The ACT and Beyond, Canberra,21 June 2006.
①齐延平： 《自由大宪章研究》,中国政法大学出版版2007年版,第275-276页。
① Alston Philip, A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Bills of Rights, In Promoting Human Rights Through Bills of Rights:Comparative Perspective, ed. Philip Alston.Oxford University Press 1999,p113.
② Submission 44在首都地区《人权法案》起草的过程中,先后一共有148个组织和个人向首都地区法律咨询委员会提出建议,此注释为排序第44位的Dr.Max Spry的提案。
③ Janet McLean,Legislative invalidation, human rights protection and s4 of the New Zealand Bill of Bill of Right Act,New Zealand Review2001,p 421,448.
①Eg Frank Brennan, Legislating Liberty:A Bill of Rights for Australia (1998).
②Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom 1982, s1.
③加拿大于1867年建立自治领,成为英联邦的一部分。
④R v Drybones[1970] SCR 282.
①Attorney-General v Lavell[1974] SCR 1349.
② Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s 27.
③加拿大《权利和自由宪章》的适用范围包括整个联邦和各个省,但其第33条规定联邦或者省议会可以不顾宪章权利的规定而宣布适用自己的法律,这一条款通常意义上被认为是“尽管条款”。这是该宪章的一个亮点。
④ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom 1982,s24.
①New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990,s6.
②New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990,s4.
③英国宪法是“不成文的”,没有被列入一部“特别重要的”、统一的文件中,而是根深蒂固地存在于习惯和实践中,它的许多部分由不记录于任何庄严文件中的惯例所组成。但这并不是说宪法原则没有成文渊源,许多宪法原则来自于立法机关的法令或者法院的意见。但是这些法定成分在法律制度中没有特殊的地位,不优越于其他法律,可以如同其他法律一样以相同的方式被修改或者废除。
④Liversidge v.Anderson[1942]A.C.206,261(H.L.).
① (1982)148 Commonwealth Legal Report 636.
② (1982)39 Commonwealth Legal Report 459.
②(1998)159 Commonwealth Legal Report 108.
①信春鹰： 《栉风沐雨历久弥坚：纪念<世界人权宣言>通过五十周年》,载《读书》1998年第12期。
②邵沙平、余敏友主编： 《国际法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2004年版,第158页。转引自徐显明主编：《国际人权法》,法律出版社2004年第1版,第64-65页。
③[英]丹宁勋爵著： 《法律的未来》,刘庸安、张文镇译,法律出版社1999年版,第317页。
①参见边永民：《国际公法案例选》,对外经济贸易出版社2006年版,第57页。
①Human Rights Amendment Bill 2012 (ACT) s6.
②《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》,第1、6、7、10-13条。
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s28.
②联合国《儿童权利国际公约》(Convention on the Rights of the Child)最终于1989年11月20日在第44届联合国大会以第25号决议通过。1990年9月2日批准生效。截至目前有191个国家批准了该公约,是影响最为广泛的国际人权公约。
③ (1995) 152 Commonwealth Legal Report 436.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s11.
② Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s8(2),(3).
①Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,Preamble.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s32.
①龚向和： 《国际人权可诉性理论之缺失：中国人权司法保护之路》,载柳华文主编： 《经济、社会和文化权利可诉性研究》,中国社会科学出版社2008年版,第197页。
② Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context:Law, Politics, Morals, New York: Oxford University Press1996,p296.
③ Maurice Cranston, Human Rights, Real and Supposed, in D. D. Raphael (ed.),Political Theory and the Rights of Man, Indiana University Press 1967,p51-52.
① See Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights,General Comment No.3,1990, in HRJ/GEN/I /Rev·6,12 May,2003,p16.
② See Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v. Grootboom,2001 (1) SA 46 (CC),para.20.
①Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s21.
①张录荣： 《公正审判基本人权视野下的司法独立与司法受制》,载《法学研究》,2010年第4期。
②陈瑞华： 《程序正义的理论基础——评马修的“尊严价值”理论》,载《中国法学》,2003年第3期。
③陈兴华主编： 《法治的使命》, 《第二讲：陈瑞华,程序正义》,法律出版社2001年版,第36页。
①Stock v. Hyde [2006] ACTSC 11.
②Warren Gardner & Julie Beaver v. ACT Land Authority (Administrative Review) [2010] AC AT 64.
③ Kristen Egan, John Hawkins and Alexander Burr v. JG [2010] ACTSC 53.
④ R v. Matthew Massey [2009] ACTCA 12.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s18.
② GRC David, Magna Carta, Trustees of British Museum,London,1963.
①杨成铭： 《人权保护区域化的尝试——欧洲人权机构的视角》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第111页。
②于立深： 《我国宪法典公民权利条款评析》, 《长白学刊》2002年第4期,第28页。
③Eastman v. Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety [2011] ACTSC 33.
①R v. Kain [2009] ACTSC 103.
② Tahi Temoannui v. Brett Jason Eric Ford [2009] ACTSC 69.
①Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s12.
①澳大利亚法律改革委员会是一个独立的法定组织,在司法部长的要求下进行法律改革等相关问题的研究和调查。
②(2008)3 Australia Legal Reform Commission Report 291.
①Daniel Emlyn-Jones and Federal Capital Press [Intervener:Human Rights Commission] [2009] ACTDT 2.
②Thomson v. ACT Planning and Land Authority (Administrative Review) [2009] ACAT 38.
③ R v. Jonathon Monaghan [2009] ACTSC 61.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s11.
① TM v. Office of Children, Youth and Family Support [2007] ACTSC 5.
② Canberra Fathers and Children Services Inc v. Michael Watson [2010] AC AT 74.
③ R v. Ashman [2010] ACTSC 45.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s22.
② Richard John Travini v. Woitek Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123.
③ R v. Martiniello [2005] ACTSC 9.
①R v.BR[2010]ACTSC 17.
①Human Rights Amendment Act 2008 (ACT) s4.
②[英]亚当·斯密：《国富论》,宗裕民编著,南海出版社2008年版,第245页。
①汪进元、陈乒： 《权利限制的立宪模式之比较》,载《法学评论》2005年第5期,第10页。
②夏勇： 《权利哲学的基本问题》,载《法学研究》2004年第3期。
③[美]路易斯·亨金： 《权利的时代》,信春鹰等译,知识出版社1997年版,第6页。
①中国人权研究会： 《人民日报理论版》,2005年6月6日第9版。
②毛俊响： 《国际人权公约权利限制的基本原则及对中国的启示》,载《政治与法律》,2010年第9期。
①The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.7,1985,p.4.para.9.
② See Alexandre Kiss, Commentary by the Rapporteur on the Limitation Provisions, in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.7,1985, p16.
① Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s13.
② Esin Orucu, The Core of Rights and Freedoms:the Limit of Limits. Human Rights:From Rhetoric to Reality. ed.Tom Campbell. Basil Blackwell1986,p37.
③ See General Comment 27, CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.9,paras.12-13.
④ See Malone v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, Judgment of 2 August 1984. Series A, No.82, para.67.
⑤ See Inter-American Court Of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion Oc-6/86 Of May 9, The Word "Laws" In Article 30 Of The American Convention On Human Rights, Requested By The Government Of Uruguay 1986,paras.7-37.
⑥ Akuna Club Limited and ACT Gambling and Racing Commission (Administrative Review) [2010] ACAT 3.
①张文显主编： 《法理学》,法律出版社1997年版,第376页。
②张志铭著： 《中国的法律解释体制》,载《中国社会科学》,1997年第2期。
③季卫东著： 《法治秩序的建构》,中国政法大学出版社1998年版,第87—88页。
①Stephen,Re Castioni[1891]1 B 149,167-168.
②Carleton Kemp Allen,Aspects of Justics,Stevens & Son1958,p184.
③参见[澳]帕克瑞·帕金森： 《澳大利亚法律的传统与发展》,陈苇译,斯尔姆森法律图书出版公司2005年版,第257页。
①转引自张文显：《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社1996年版,第129页。
②宁敏： 《澳大利亚1901年法律解释法——对议会制定的法律进行解释并缩短其语言的法律》,载《民商法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社1999年版,第755页。
③陈金钊： 《案例指导制度下的法律解释及其意义》,载《苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2011年第2期。
④转引自章启群：《意义的本体论——哲学诠释学》,上海译文出版社2002年版,第77页。
⑤ Hilary Charlesworth and Gabrielle McKinnon. Australia's First Bill of Rights:The Australian Capital Territory's Human Rights Act. The Federation Press2006,p7.
①Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s31(1).
②Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s31(2).
③ Firestone v. The Australian National University [2004] ACTSC76.
① Maunsell v. Olins,[1995] AC373,382,per Lord Reid.
② See Bropho v. The State of West Australia,(1990)171 Commonwealth Legal Report l,at 20.
① ACT Parliament Debate, Legislative Assembly,6 December2007,4031 (Simon Corbell).
② Imran Hakimi v. Legal Aid Commission (ACT),The Australian Capital Territory (Intervener) [2009] ACTSC 48.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s22.(2)bd.
② See Hakimi (2009) 3 ACTLR 127,137.
① ACT Human Rights Act 2004,s40B.
②同上引注。
③ ACT Human Rights Act 2004-The First Year, Paper presented at the conference "Assessing the First Year of the ACT Human Rights Act",29 June 2005,p6.
①The ACT Human Rights Act-The Second Year, Paper presented at the conference,21 June 2006,p14.
② ACT Human Rights Act 2004,s40(1).
① Council of Australian Government, Council of Australian Governments Communique:Special meeting on counter-terrorism(2005), available at http://www.coag.gov.au.
① ACT Human Rights Act 2004,s37.
② See ACT Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on Legal Affairs, Legislative Assembly for the ACT, Comments on the Responses Scrutiny Report No 3 (2009).
③ Australian Government, Australia's Human Rights Framework (2010).
④ ACT Human Rights Act 2004,s38.
① Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s31.
① Explanatory Statement, Human Rights Act Amendment Bill 2007 (ACT) c3.
② Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s32.
④ See http://acthra.anu.edu.au/cases/case.php?id=291,访问时间2011年9月10日。
③Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004,s33.
① Constitutional Connnission, above n 28,460.
②同上引注。
③ Constitution Connnission Victoria, Final Report:A House for Our Future, Terms of Reference (2002) 5 Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet.
① Department of Justice, Victoria, Human Rights in Victoria:Statement of Intent(2005).
②同上引注。
③ Fergus Shiel,'State accused of reneging on human rights charter', The Age (Melbourne),20 June 2005,5.
④ Charter ofHuman Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic),s7.
⑤ Charter ofHuman Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic),s39(3).
① Standing Committee on Law and Justice, NSW Legislative Council, A NSW Bill of Rights (2001).
② Standing Committee on Law and Justice, NSW Legislative Council, A NSW Bill of Rights (2001)110.
③ Standing Committee on Law and Justice, NSW Legislative Council, A NSW Bill of Rights (2001)98.
④ Standing Committee on Law and Justice, NSW Legislative Council, A NSW Bill of Rights (2001)86.
⑤Jonathan Pearlman, Charter of rights plan to be put to cabine, Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney),20 March 2006.
① Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development, Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, Final Draft Constitution for the Northern Territory (1996) pt 8.
② Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, Milestones in the Constitutional History of the Northern Territory 1824-2005.s6.3.
①Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004, s 27.
① (1992)107 Commonwealth Legal Report 6,18.
②See Bain Attwood and Fiona Magowan (ed.),Telling Stoies-Indigenous history and memory in Australia and New Zealand, Allen & Unw 2001, p 200-203.
③ Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution,10th edu.Macmillan1959,p195-202.Compare this with E.Barendt,Dicey and Civil Liberties[19851 Public Law 596;W.I.Jennings,The Law and the Constitution,5th edn,University of London Press1959.
David Malcolm,Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?'(1998) 5(3) E Law Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law [1]
Constitutional Commission, Commonwealth, Final Report of the Constitutional Commission, Volume One (1988), p456.
① (1959) 47,328, quoted by the Constitutional Commission.
② Constitutional Commission,above n 28, p456.
③ The proposals were contained in the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms)Bill 1988 (Cth), and the referendum was held on 3 September 1988. Australian Parliamentary Library, Attempts at a federal Bill of Rights
④ Malcohn, above n 27,1. See also the report of the Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development, Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, A Northern Territory Bill of Rights? (1995) 10.
①Malcohn Farr, State rights push wrong-Ruddock slams campaign, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney),4(7)2006,p 17.
②参见朱应平： 《澳大利亚宪法权利研究》,法律出版社2006年版第32页。
①李步云： 《论人权》,社会科学文献出版社2010年版,第1页。
②徐显明,齐延平：《中国人权制度建设的五大主题》,载《文史哲》,2002年第4期,第45页。
①姚建宗： 《建设社会主义和谐社会与认真对待人权》,载《长春理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,2008年第5期,第2页。
②徐显明,齐延平：《中国人权制度建设的五大主题》,载《文史哲》,2002年第4期,第45页。
①李步云： 《论人权》,社会科学文献出版社2010年版,第213页。
②[美]霍贝尔： 《原始人的法》,严存生等译, 贵州人民出版社1992年版,第4、5页。
1. Alice Erh-Soon Tay. Human rights for Australia:a survey of literature and developments, and a select and annotated bibliography of recent literature in Australia and abroad. Australian Government Publishing Service,1986.
2.Alston Philip. Promoting human rights through bills of rights:Comparative Perspectives. Oxford University Press,1999.
3.Andrew Byrnes, Hilary Charlesworth and Gabrielle McKinnon. Bills of Rights in Australia:History, Politics and Law. University of New South Wales Press,2009.
4.Christian Tomuschat. Human rights:between idealism and realism. Oxford University Press,2008.
5.Daniel Moeckli,Sangeeta Shah,Sandesh Sivakumaran.International human rights law,Oxford University Press,2010.
6.Fredman Sandra. Human rights transformed:positive rights and positive duties. Oxford University Press,2008.
7.George Williams, Human Rights under the Australian Constitution, Oxford University Press,2002
8.Hilary Charlesworth and Gabrielle McKinnon. Australia's first bill of rights: the Australian Capital Territory's Human Rights Act. Centre for International and Public Law, Faculty of Law, Australian National University,2006.
9.Hilary Charlesworth. Towards an Australian bill of rights.Report of the ACT Bill of Rights Consultative Committee,2003.
10.Human Rights Commission. The Right of peaceful assembly in the ACT. Australian Government Public Service,1985.
11. James W.Nickel.Making Sense of Human Rights.Blackwell Publishing,2007.
12.Kamenka Eugene. Rights, human rights and the rights of peoples.Department of Jurisprudence, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, for the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy,1993.
13.Kinley David. Human rights in Australian law:principles, practice and potential. The Federation Press,1998.
14.Louise Chappell,John Chesterman and Lisa Hill.The politics of human rights in Australia.Cambridge University Press,2009.
15.Mason Anthony.Human rights and Australian judges. Centre for International and Public Law,1996.
16.M.Mckenna. The Captive Republic. Cambridge University Press,1996.
17.Maurice Cranston.Human Rights, Real and Supposed, in D. D. Raphael (ed.), Political Theory and the Rights of Man, Indiana University Press,1967.
18.Nettheim Garth. Aborigines, human rights and the law. Sydney:Australia & New Zealand Book Company [in conjunction with the] International Commission of Jurists (Australian Division),1974.
19.Peter Bailey. Human rights:Australia in an International Context. Butterworths,1990.
20.Peter Bailey.The Human Rights Enterprise in Australia and Internationally. Butterworth,2009.
21.Philip Alston.Toward an Australian Bill of Rights.Centre for International and Pubilc Law Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission,1994.
22.Republicanism, responsible government and human rights. Canberra: Department of the Senate,1995.
23.Richard Clayton,Hugh Tomlinson,The law of human rights (Second annual supplement),Oxford University Press,2003.
24. Sam Garkawe, Loretta Kelly, Warwick Fisher. Indigenous human rights. Institute of Criminology, Sydney University Law School,2001.
25.Sir Owen Dixon, Two Constitutions Compared'in Judge Woinarski (ed), Jesting Pilate and Other Papers and Addresses,1965.
26.Stuart Kaye and Ryszard Piotrowicz.Human Rights in International and Australian Law. Butterworths,2000.
27.Tom Campbell,David Goldberg,Shelia McLean and Tom Mullen. Human rights:From Rhetoric to Reality. Basil Blackwell,1986.
1.Angela Ward.Checks and balances:the importance of a bill of rights. Precednt; (68)2005.
2.Anthony Lester. The judicial protection of human rights in the Commonwealth. Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education; 1(1) 2001.
3.Bronwyn Naylor and Bernadette Saunders. Whose rights? Children, parents and discipline. Alternative Law Journal; 34 (2) 2009.
4.Benion Francis. Human rights:a threat to law? University of New South Wales Law Journal; 26(2)2003.
5.Brian Galligan and Emma Larking. Rights protection:the Bill of Rights debate and rights protection in Australia's states and territories. Adelaide Law Review; 28(1-2) 2007.
6.Carolyn Evans. Responsibility for rights:the ACT Human Rights Act. Federal Law Review; 32 (2) 2004.
7.Cassidy Julie. Hollow avowals of human rights protection:time for an Australian federal bill of rights? Deakin Law Review; 13 (2) 2008.
8.Dalla-Pozza.Dominique and Williams, George. The constitutional validity of declarations of incompatibility in Australian charters of rights. Deakin Law Review; 12 (1)2007.
9.David K Malcolm. A Human rights Act for,Australia. University of North Dame Australia Law Review; 12(8) 2006.
10.Davis Megan and George Williams. A statutory Bill of Rights for Australia? Lessons from the United Kingdom. University of Queensland Law Journal; 22 (1) 2002.
11.Dignity, fairness and good government:the role of a human rights act. Alternative Law Journal; 34(2)2009.
12.Elizabeth Kelly. Human rights Act 2004:a new dawn for rights protection? Aial Forum; 4(41)2004.
13.Geoff Mclay. Damages for breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights:why aren't they sufficient remedy? New Zealand Law Review; (2) 2008.
14.George Williams. Lessons from Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Law Society Journal; 45 (1) 2007.
15.Greg Craven. The WA Human Rights Bill:against. Brief; 34 (11) 2007.
16.Government re-evaluates human rights protections.Tirohia Focus; 6(2) 2000.
17.Hilary Charlesworth. Democratic objections to bills of rights. Sydney Papers; 20 (3) 2008.
18.Hilary Charlesworth. Who wins under a bill of rights?University of Queensland Law Journal;25 (1) 2006.
19.Human Rights Act intellectual shake up for Scots. Law Society Journal.38 (10)2000.
20.Human rights principles in the HRA. Hot topics; 4(54) 2005.
21. James Allan. The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities exegesis and criticism. Melbourne University Law Review;30 (3) 2007.
22.James Stellios.Federal dimensions to the ACT Human Rights Act. Aial Forum; (47)2005.
23 Jim South. Potential constitutional and statutory limitations on the scope of the interpretative obligation imposed by s 32(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). University of Queensland Law Journal; 28(1)2009.
24.JJ Spigelman. Keynote address:access to justice and human rights treaties. Sydney Law Review; 22 (1) 2000.
25.John Dawson. Community treatment orders and human rights. Law In Context; 26(2)2008.
26.Jon Stanhope. The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT):making a stand in the ACT. Alternative Law Journal; 30(2)2005.
27.Julie Ebeljak. Rights protection without judicial supremacy:a review of the Canadian and British models of Bills of Rights. Melbourne University Law Review; 26(2)2002.
28.Julie Taylor. Human rights protection in Australia:interpretation provisions and parliamentary supremacy. Federal Law Review; 32 (1) 2004.
29.Kate Eastman and Lex Lasry. Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 (Cth) and the Human Rights Act (2004) ACT. University of Western Sydney Law Review; (9) 2005.
30.Lara Kostakidis-Lianos and George Williams. Bills of responsibilities:is one needed to counter the 'excesses' of the ACT Human Rights Act 2004? Alternative Law Journal; 30 (2) 2005.
31.Liz Curran. Human rights in Australia:their relevance to the vulnerable and marginalised. Alternative Law Joural; 33 (2) 2008.
32.Max Spry. The ACT Human Rights Bill 2003:A brief survey. Aial Forum; (41) 2004.
33..Michael Stanton. Fighting phantoms:a democratic defence of human rights legislation. Alternative Law Journal; 32 (3) 2007.
34.Michael Walton. Human rights:what's been left out of Australia's first Bill of Rights? Alternative Law Journal; 29 (4) 2004.
35.New year, New Act, New Commission. Tirohia Focus; (1) 2002.
36.Nick Carney.The ethical dimensions of a human rights act for Australia. Living Ethics; (62) 2005.
37.Peter Bayne.The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).Developments in 2004. Canberra Law Review;(8)2005.
38.Simon Bronitt and Prita Jobling, Constitutional Protection of Rights: Australian Exceptions, Legal Date,3(17)2005
39.Rachel Ball. Outside classrooms and courtrooms:the good news on human rights. Alternative Law Journal; 34 (2) 2009.
40. Rashda Rana. The implications for commercial practice in a future bill of rights. Commercial Law Quarterly; 22 (2) 2008.
41.Royden Hindle. Rights against legislated discrimination:a sleeping giant? Part IA of the Human Rights Act 1993. New Zealand Law Review; 1 (2) 2008.
42.Scott Guy and Barbara Ann Hocking. Times of pestilence:would a Bill of Rights assist Australian citizens who are quarantined in the event of an avian influenza (bird flu) pandemic? Current Issues In Criminal. Justice; 17 (3) 2006.
43.Sean Moysey and John Paget. A prison built on human rights. Precedent; (81)2007.
44.Simeon Beckett. Interpreting legislation consistently with human rights. AIAL Forum;9(58) 2008.
45.Simon Bronitt and Prita Jobling. Constitutional protection of rights:the Australian exceptions. Legaldate; 17 (3) 2005.
46. Stefanie Wilkins. Constitutional limits on bills of rights introduced by a state or territory. Federal Law Review; 35 (3) 2007.
47.Tanya Aplin. Breach of confidence and privacy:the impact of the Human Rights Act.Intellectual Property Forum:Journal of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and NZ;9 (50) 2002.
4S.The Human Rights Bill:is a Human Rights Act a good idea for WA? Brief:33(11)2006.
49.Thomas Poole. Bills of Rights in Australia. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal; 4 (2) 2004.
50.Tom Campbell. Does anyone win under a bill of rights? A response to Hilary Charlesworth's'Who wins under a bill of rights? University of Queensland Law Journal; 25 (1) 2006.
51.Victoria Gregory. Mainstreaming human rights in the public sector. Tirohia Focus; 2(1)2003.
1.朱应平著： 《澳大利亚宪法权利研究》,法律出版社2006年版。
2.许章润、徐平编： 《法律：理性与历史——澳大利亚的理念、制度和实践》,中国法制出版社2000年版。
3.蒋为廉著： 《普通法和公平法原则概要：澳大利亚著名案例选注》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
4.王宇博： 《澳大利亚——在移植中再造》,四川人民出版社2000年版。
5.徐显明主编： 《人权研究》(第1-11卷),山东人民出版社。
6.齐延平著： 《人权与法治》,山东人民出版社2003年版。
7.齐延平著： 《自由大宪章研究》,中国政法大学出版社2007年版。
8.王德华著： 《澳大利亚：从移民社会到现代社会》,上海科学院出版社1997年版。
9.季卫东著： 《法治秩序的建构》,中国政法大学出版社,1998年版。
10.杨成铭： 《人权保护区域化的尝试——欧洲人权机构的视角》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
11.张文显主编： 《法理学》,法律出版社1997年版。
12.李步云： 《论人权》,科学文献出版社2010年版。
13.何勤华： 《澳大利亚法律发达史》,法律出版社2004年版。
14.黄源深,陈弘： 《从孤立中走向世界——澳大利亚文化简论》,浙江人民出版社1993年版。
15.张天： 《澳洲史》,社会科学文献出版社1996年版。
16.徐显明主编： 《国际人权法》,法律出版社2004年。
17.[澳]帕瑞克·帕金森著,陈苇译： 《澳大利亚法律的传统与发展》(第三版),西南政法大学外国家庭及妇女理论研究中心2008年印制。
18.[澳]戈登·格林伍德编： 《澳大利亚政治社会史》,北京编译社编译,商务印书馆1960年版。
19.[澳]杰弗里·博尔顿： 《澳大利亚历史》,李尧译,北京出版社1993年版。
20.[英]休谟： 《人性论》,潘华志编著,人民出版社2010年版。
21.[英]亚当·斯密： 《国富论》,宗裕民编著,南海出版社2008年版。
22.[英]A.J.M.米尔恩： 《人的权利与人的多样性》,夏勇、张志铭译,中国大百科全书出版社 1997年版。
23.[英]丹宁勋爵著： 《法律的未来》,刘庸安、张文镇译,法律出版社1999年版
24.[美]本杰明·卡多佐： 《司法过程的性质》,苏力译,商务印书馆1998年版。
25.王宇博： 《对澳大利亚公民权利概念与实践的历史考察》,载《法制现代化研究》(第十卷)。
26.汪进元、陈乒： 《权利限制的立宪模式之比较》,载《法学评论》2005年第5期。
27.夏勇： 《权利哲学的基本问题》,载《法学研究》2004年第3期。
28.张志铭： 《中国的法律解释体制》,载《中国社会科学》,1997年第2期。
29.陈瑞华： 《程序正义的理论基础——评马修的“尊严价值理论”》,载《中国法学》,2003年第3期。
30.龚向和： 《国际人权可诉性理论之缺失： 中国人权司法保护之路》载柳华文主编： 《经济、社会和文化权利可诉性研究》,中国社会科学出版社2008年版。
31.徐显明、齐延平： 《中国人权制度建设的五大主题》,载《文史哲》,2004年第4期。
32.姚建宗： 《建设社会主义和谐社会与认真对待人权》,载《长春理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,2008年第5期。