查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- The Right to Freedom of Expression and the Protection of Health and Morals--The Jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights
- 集會及結社自由權：歐洲人權法院判決之分析
- Public Service, Free Expression and European Convention on Human Rights
- 歐洲人權法院--歷史、組織、職權及程序
- 論奴隸制度、奴役制度與強迫勞動之禁止：以歐洲人權公約第四條為中心
- 歐洲人權公約之監督機構--國際人權最強而有力之監督者
- 憲法上「公平聽審權」於行政程序中之適用--以歐洲人權公約為中心
- 嶄新的歐洲人權法院
- 嶄新的歐洲人權法院
- 歐洲人權政策規範對法國國內法律判決之影響
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | The Right to Freedom of Expression and the Protection of Health and Morals--The Jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights=表現自由權與健康及道德之保護--歐洲人權公約案例研究 |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 廖福特; | 書刊名 | 歐美研究 |
| 卷 期 | 30:1 2000.03[民89.03] |
| 頁 次 | 頁159-216 |
| 分類號 | 571.9 |
| 關鍵詞 | 表現自由; 健康及道德保護; 歐洲人權公約; 歐洲人權法院; 判斷餘地原則; The right to freedom of expression; Protection of health and morals; European Convention on Human Rights; European Court of Human Rights; The principle of proportionality; |
| 語 文 | 英文(English) |
| 中文摘要 | 本文探討歐洲人權公約第十條之案例法中，保護表現自由權及維護健康及道德如何平衡。本文認為，歐洲人權機構給予各簽約國廣泛之「判斷餘地原則」，因而其並未妥善保障表現自由權。然而歐洲人權法院認為限制墮胎資訊之提供乃是違反公約第十條之規定，此意見加強表現自由權之保護，同時其亦表示，即使是各簽約國之具爭議性之憲法規定，亦需接受歐洲人權法院之審查，而歐洲人權法院已開始走向成為「歐洲憲法法院」之路程。本文認為歐洲人權機構不應過度強調「判斷餘地原則」及「輔助性原則」，因為歐洲人權機構本身即為「歐洲共識」之產品，而其所施行者為「國際司法審查」，因而歐洲人權機構應以「比例原則」檢視各案件以建立「歐洲準則」。 |
| 英文摘要 | This essay analyses how and where the European Commis-sion and Court of Human Rights draw the line between the guarantee of the right to freedom of expression and the protec-tion of health and morals by a detailed study of the case-law of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It ar-gues that the institutions of the Convention, by referring too much to the doctrine of margin of appreciation, limited the pro-tection of the right to freedom of expression. On the other hand, by judging that limiting the provision of abortion information did not comply with Article 10 of the Convention, the Court en-hanced the guarantee of the right. It also argues that the institutions should not put too much emphasis on the “principle of subsidiary” and the “doctrine of margin of appreciation,” as the institutions themselves have been the product of a “European consensus” exercising “international judicial review.” Rather, the institutions should apply the “doctrine of proportionality” and try to establish a “European standard” for protecting the right to freedom of expression. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。