《欧洲人权法公约评论》2023年第2期摘要翻译

点击蓝字 关注我们

European Convention on Human Rights Law Review

欧洲人权法公约评论

期刊介绍 

这是第一本专门致力于《欧洲人权公约》法律制度的学术期刊。该评论提供同行评审的法律学术研究，探讨《欧洲人权公约》框架内基本人权的保护及其对其他地区人权制度的影响。它是一个论坛，主要研究比较法、人权法、国际法和《欧洲人权公约》制度实践和程序的法律哲学分析。

在支持法律（教义、理论和哲学）分析的同时，该评论还出版了法律、历史、政治学和经济学交叉领域的多学科著作。它对所有方法和思想流派开放，包括（案例）法的比较、教义、定量和经济分析。它为成员国和其他地区的学者和从业者以及所有从事人权法领域工作的人提供学术和感兴趣的信息。

译者：戴梅顺子 广东财经大学本科生

初审：吴敏 山东师范大学法学院本科生

终审：陈嘉怡 暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院研究生

期刊目录：

01. 欧洲人权法院及其对共同价值观的追求

The European Court of Human Rights and Its Search for Common Values

02. 应受谴责的还是合法的目标？根据其优势检验对《欧洲人权公约》第18条的新方法提出的建议

Reprehensible or Legitimate Aims? A Proposal for a New Approach to Article 18 echr in Light of its Predominance Test

03. 不仅仅是一个简单的公务员：欧洲人权法院最近的判例法中诉诸法官的权利

Not Just a Simple Civil Servant: The Right of Access to a Court of Judges in the Recent Case Law of the ECHR

04. 仇恨言论：对欧洲人权法院的务实评估法理学

Hate Speech: A Pragmatic Assessment of the European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence

摘要翻译：

01. 欧洲人权法院及其对共同价值观的追求

作者：

卡尔·埃米利奥·刘易斯（Carl Emilio Lewis），荷兰阿瑟研究所“国际法和欧洲法中的争端解决和裁决”项目研究员

摘要：

价值观在欧洲人权法院（以下简称“法院”）的判例中起着重要作用，并有可能影响法院对《欧洲人权公约》（以下简称《公约》）的解释。当法院在进行欧洲共识分析时提到共同价值观时，这一点尤其明显。通过探索价值观概念的社会学方法和吉尔伯特对共同价值观的总结性和多元主体描述，本文认为法院在《公约》成员国之间寻找共同价值观是合理的，这是为了努力使其对《公约》权利的解释与这些价值观保持一致。然而，本文还主张，当法院将规范权威赋予纯粹通过对国家实践的比较分析确定的共同价值观时，它在推理中混淆了共同价值观的总结性和多元主体描述，从而引起了合法性问题。

Values play a significant role in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (Court), and carry the potential to influence the Court’s interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). This is particularly evident when the Court refers to common values whilst engaging in European consensus analysis. By exploring sociological approaches to the concept of values and Gilbert’s summative and plural subject accounts of shared values, this article argues that it is reasonable for the Court to search for common values amongst the member states of the Convention, in an effort to align its interpretation of Convention rights with such values. However, the article contends that when the Court ascribes normative authority to shared values identified purely through a comparative analysis of state practice, it is confounding the summative and plural subject accounts of common values in its reasoning, thus raising legitimacy concerns.

02. 应受谴责还是合法的目标？根据其优势检验对《欧洲人权公约》第18条的新方法提出的建议

作者：

托拜厄斯·莫迪埃（Tobias Mortier），比利时根特大学人权中心和大学博士研究员

摘要：

欧洲人权法院认为，如果被告当局同时追求合法和隐藏的目标（多重目标），并且隐藏目标占主导地位，就违反了《欧洲人权公约》第18条。法院通过考虑隐藏目标的“可谴责性的性质和程度”来确立这一“主导地位”。本文认为，这一可谴责性标准没有以一致的方式适用，导致其背后的真正含义不可预测。法院要么将其解释为对背景因素的评估，要么将其解释为影响评估，有时甚至在没有多重目标的情况下适用它。本文指出了这些不同解释中的缺陷，并提出了建议，以确定这些解释在哪里最适合根据第十八条适用；前者在优势检验下，后者作为新的门槛标准。

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR, Court) finds a violation of Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if the respondent authorities simultaneously pursued both a legitimate and hidden aim (plurality of aims), provided that the latter was the predominant one. The Court establishes this predominance by considering the ‘nature and degree of reprehensibility’ of the hidden aim. I argue that this reprehensibility criterion has not been applied in a consistent manner, resulting in unpredictability as to the true meaning behind it. The Court either interprets this as an assessment of contextual factors or as an impact assessment, and sometimes even applies it in the absence of a plurality of aims. This article points out the flaws in these different interpretations and formulates recommendations in order to determine where these interpretations would be most aptly applied under Article 18; the former under the predominance test, the latter as a new threshold criterion.

03. 不仅仅是一个简单的公务员：欧洲人权法院最近的判例法中诉诸法官的权利

作者：

马蒂厄·勒鲁普（Mathieu Leloup），荷兰蒂尔堡大学宪法和行政法助理教授

摘要：

本文讨论了欧洲人权法院（以下简称“法院”）最近的判例法中诉诸法院的权利，特别是在涉及国内法官的案件中适用所谓的埃斯凯林测试。法院似乎为这一测试确立了一种新的方法，这大大提高了在涉及法官地位或职业的争议时排除法官诉诸法院的门槛。首先，本文讨论了这一新方法，表明其原因可以在欧洲当前的法治环境中找到，并强调其在未来法治相关案件中的潜力。然而，本文同样指出，在关于法官地位或职业的争端中，测试如何将最终决定权赋予法官本人，这造成了内部司法独立的潜在问题，并可能扭曲敏感的权力平衡制度。

This article discusses the right of access to a court in the most recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights, more particularly the application of the so-called Eskelinen-test in the context of cases concerning domestic Judges. The Court appears to have established a new approach to this test, which considerably raises the bar to exclude Judges from access to a court when disputes about their status or career are concerned. First, the article discusses this new approach, suggesting that the reason for it can be found in the current rule of law landscape in Europe and highlighting its potential for future rule of law related cases. Yet, it equally points out how the test gives the final say in disputes about the status or career of Judges to Judges themselves, which creates potential issues of internal judicial independence, and may skew sensitive systems of balance of powers.

04. 仇恨言论：对欧洲人权法院的务实评估法理学

作者：

阿莱西奥·萨尔多（Alessio Sardo），意大利热那亚大学法学院高级研究员

摘要：

本文旨在为解决与仇恨言论有关的几个难题提供一个新的开始。研究方法将概念分析与评估欧洲人权法院关于仇恨言论的裁决的可能模型相结合。首先，根据格里谢对沟通的描述，该论点提出了仇恨言论的工作定义：仇恨言论最好被理解为一种公共言论行为，旨在使个人处于从属地位，从而对目标群体造成伤害。其次，本文根据不同形式的仇恨言论的明确性和脱离演讲者意图的程度，对它们进行了分类。最明显的（有害的）仇恨言论形式——例如种族诽谤、争斗性言论或公开的性别歧视言论——将与隐含的（有害的）仇恨言论形式——例如影射、暗讽和讽刺——区分开来。第三，作者为仇恨言论制定了一个分类框架，可以作为评估欧洲人权法院判例的标准。作者还讨论了该模型的三个局限性：a）缺乏欧洲共识，b）困惑的演讲者，以及c）难以确定伤害。

This paper aims to offer a fresh start for addressing several conundrums relating to hate speech. The method of research combines a conceptual analysis with a possible model for evaluating the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) decisions on hate speech. First, drawing on a Gricean account of communication, the argument proposes a working definition of hate speech: hate speech is best understood as a public speech act, aimed at subordinating individuals, which causes harm to targeted groups. Second, the paper offers a taxonomy of the different forms of hate speech, based on their degree of explicitness and detachment from the speaker’s intentions. The most explicit forms of (harmful) hate speech – e.g., racial slurs, fighting words, or overtly sexist remarks – will be distinguished from implicit forms of (harmful) hate speech – e.g., innuendo, insinuation, and irony. Third, the author develops a categorical framework for hate speech that can be used as a standard for evaluating the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. The author also discusses three limitations of the model: a) the absence of a European consensus, b) puzzled speakers, and c) difficulty in determining harm.

感谢观看  欢迎关注

本译文不代表平台立场，仅代表作者观点 

图片转载自网络，如有侵权请联系删除

“法眼看南海”由暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院徐奇副教授及其团队运营，旨在介绍和分析国际法和南海问题有关的信息动态和名家学说

联系邮箱：xuqi2019@jnu.edu.cn

图文编辑：崔诗若 中国海洋大学法学院本科生

审校：徐奇 暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院副教授

欢迎关注、转发或分享朋友圈，如需转载独家刊文请注明“文章转载自法眼看南海公众号”