论文部分内容阅读
边际裁量原则从上个世纪的50年代的希腊诉英国案起成为欧洲人权委员会和人权法院的核心裁判方法。英国学者Letsas将边际裁量分为结构性边际裁量和实体性边际裁量两类。本文将在辅助性原则基础上重新审视Letsas的理论,并且以Greer的理论对Letsas观点进行补充。人权法院对任何案件都会在程序上进行司法审查。在人权法院同意缔约国法院裁判结果时,其会对缔约国作出一般性的赞同决定;当人权法院无法作出确定性结论时,人权法院会确认自身的司法局限性,给予缔约国巨大的边际裁量空间。辅助性原则同时也意味着人权法院有义务弥补缔约国人权保障的不足以及监督缔约国实施人权公约的效果。
The principle of marginalization has been the core of the European Commission of Human Rights and the Human Rights Court since the case of Greece v. England in the 1950s. British scholar Letsas divides the marginal discretion into two categories: structural marginal discretion and substantive marginal discretion. This article will re-examine the theory of Letsas on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity, and supplement Letsas with Greer’s theory. The Court of Human Rights will have procedural judicial review of any case. When a human rights court agrees with the outcome of a court decision in a State party, it will make a general endorsement of the decision by the State party. When the human rights court is unable to reach definitive conclusions, the human rights court will confirm its own judicial limitations and give the contracting parties ample room for marginal discretion. The principle of subsidiarity also means that human rights courts have an obligation to remedy the insufficiency of human rights guarantees in the State party and to monitor the effects of the implementation of human rights conventions by the State party.