百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[中共镇压法轮功的国际法分析]
郭国汀律师专栏
·国际刑事法院规约(1998)
·国际刑事法庭(芦旺达)程序与证据规则(1995)
·国际刑事法庭(芦旺达)规约
·起诉严重侵犯国际人道法责任人的国际(前南斯拉夫)法庭规约(1991)
·消除一切形式歧视妇女的国际公约1981
·国际人权法律资料 取缔教育歧视公约
·关于就业及职业歧视的公约
·消除一切形式歧视妇女的国际公约选择性议定书2000
·联合国防止和惩罚种族灭绝罪的公约(1951)
·联合国有关难民身份的国际公约1954
·儿童权利国际公约1990
·起诉和惩罚欧洲轴心国主要战争罪犯的国际军事法庭协议(纽伦堡宪章)
***区域性国际人权法律文件
·1996年欧洲反破坏性异端决议及其邪教定义
·非洲人权和人民权利公约(1981)
·美洲人的权利与义务宣言(1948)
·美洲人权公约(1969)
·美洲防止和禁罚酷刑的公约
·防止酷刑和其他残忍不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚的欧洲公约1989
·欧洲保护人权和基本自由公约(1950)
·欧洲社会宪章1961
·建设新欧洲的巴黎宪章1990
(B)***美国人权法律文件
·美国1620年“五月花号”公约(The Mayflower Compact)
·美国1786年弗吉尼亚宗教自由法令
·美国1776年弗吉尼亚权利法案
·美国1862年解放黑奴宣言
·美国1777年邦联条款
·美国1776年维吉尼亚权利法案
(C)***英国人权法律文件
·英国1998年人权法案
·英国1676年人身保护令
·英国1689年权利法案
·英国1628年权利请愿书
·英国1215年自由大宪章
***(52)郭国汀论法官与律师
·悼念前最高法院大法官冯立奇教授逝世四周年
·法官律师与政党 郭国汀
·尊敬的法官大人你值得尊敬吗?!
·郭国汀与中国律师网友论法官
·法官的良心与良知/南郭
·法官!这是我法律生涯的终极目标! 郭国汀
·律师与法官之间究竟应如何摆正关系?
·从 “中国律师人”说开去
·唯有科班出身者才能当律师?!答王靓华高论/南郭
·律师的责任——再答李洪东/南郭
·中国律师朋友们幸福不会从天降!/南郭
·我为北京16位律师喝彩!郭国汀
·郭国汀律师与网上警官的交锋
·我是中国律师我怕谁?!
·郭国汀 好律师与称职的律师
·温柔抗议对郭律师的ID第二次查封
·第五次强烈抗议中国律师网无理非法封杀郭律师的IP
·中国律师网为何封杀中国律师?
·中律网封杀删除最受网友们欢迎的郭国汀律师
·最受欢迎的写手却被中共彻底封杀
·我为何暂时告别中国律师网?
·南郭:律师的文学功底
·中国最需要什么样的律师?
·勇敢地参政议政吧!中国律师们!
·将律师协会办成真正的民间自治组织
·强烈挽留郭国汀律师/小C
·the open letter to Mr.Hu Jintao from Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada for Gao Zhisheng
·自宫与被阉割的中国律师网 /南郭
·做律师首先应当做个堂堂正正的人——南郭与王靓华的论战/南郭
·呵!吉大,我心中永远的痛!
·再答小C君/南郭
·凡跟郭国汀贴者一律入选黑名单!
·历史不容患改!历史专家不敢当,吾喜读中国历史是实
·思想自由的益处答迷风先生
·答迷风先生
·答经纬仪之民族败类之指责,汝不妨教教吾辈汝之哲学呀?
·南郭曾是"天才"但一夜之间被厄杀成蠢才,如今不过是个笨蛋耳!
·答时代精英,
·长歌独行至郭国汀律师公开函
***(53)大学生\知识分子与爱国愤青研究
·春寒料峭,公民兀立(南郭强烈推荐大中学生及留学生和所有关心中国前途的国人精读)
·大中学生及留学生必读:胡锦涛崇尚的古巴政治是什么玩意?!
·是否应彻底否定中华传统文
·向留学生及大中学生推荐一篇好文
·向留学生大学生强烈推荐杰作驳中共政权威权化的谬论
·强烈谴责中共党控教育祸国殃民的罪孽!--闻贺卫方教授失业有感
·學術腐敗是一個國家腐敗病入膏肓的明證
·中共专制暴政长期推行党化奴化教育罪孽深重
·教育国民化、私有化而非政治化党化是改革教育最佳途径之一
·论当代中国大学生和爱国愤青的未来
·给中国大学生留学生及爱国愤青们开书单
·中国知识分子死了!
·强烈推荐大学生与爱国愤青必读最佳论文
·敬请爱国愤青们关注爱国民族英雄郑贻春教授
·敬请海内外爱国愤青兄弟姐妹们关注爱国留学生英雄清水君
·敬请海内外爱国愤青们关注爱国留学生英雄冯正虎
·爱国愤青主要是因为无知
***(54)《郭国汀妙语妙言》郭国汀著
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
中共镇压法轮功的国际法分析


   
   中共镇压法轮功的国际法分析
   
   Imposed Limitations on Freedom of Religion in China and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: A Legal Analysis of the Crackdown on the Falun Gong and Other Evil Cults,

   
   
   
    By Bryan, Edelman, James T. Richardson
   
   
   
   
   
    INTRODUCTION
   
   
   
    "Like a rat crossing the street that everyone shouts out to squash, they [Falun Gong] will suffer serious legal sanctions and ultimately receive the shameful fate of failure.[1]
   
   
   
    On 25 April 1999, over ten thousand Falun Gong adherents gathered in a peaceful "appeal" around Zhongnanhai, home to the majority of the central governmental leadership in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The protestors wanted the PRC government to officially recognize the movement as a legitimate form of spirituality.[2] Within a week of the protest, Beijing had decided to declare the group an illegal sect.[3] Soon thereafter, the attempt to "squash the rat" began.]。
   
   
   
    According to Article 55 of the United Nations Charter,[4] one of the purposes of the UN is to promote (emphasis added) "respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." In 1948, the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[5] sought to give substance to these notions. Article 18 identified' Freedom of religion as a human right. Eighteen years later, this was affirmed in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.[6] Although China signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention of Civil and Political Rights, it is under no obligation under treaty law to protect the freedom of religion, until the latter is ratified by the Chinese government.[7] However, there may be obligations arising out of customary international law to which China must comply. Any criticism of China's actions against the Falun Gong must take these factors into account.
   
   
   
    This analysis presents a legal critique of the People's Republic of China's crackdown on the Falun Gong. Part I discusses the debate over freedom of religion and whether this right has become part of customary international law. Part II addresses questions pertaining to the derogation and limitation of human rights during times of state emergency and times of peace. The principle of proportionality and the margin of appreciation are introduced as a means to evaluate state infringement upon these rights. Part III provides a chronology of the key legislative and executive actions that have been employed against the Falun Gong. Part IV discusses notions of "cults" and the influence of the Western Anti-Cult Movement in China. Finally, the principles of proportionality and the margin of appreciation are applied to evaluate attempts by the PRC government to take action against the Falun Gong and other "evil cults."
   
   
   
    PART I: THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION
   
   
   
    Conventions and Declarations
   
   
   
    Freedom of religion comprises two elements, belief and practice.[8] These two components are addressed in three principle documents on religious freedom-The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief (DEID).[9] The UDHR deals with religious freedom in Article 18 (emphasis added): Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes the freedom... . to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
   
    Article 18 of the ICCPR also addresses freedom of religion. However, it provides more detail than the UDHR, particularly in relation to the freedom of practice. The freedom of religious choice is protected as well (emphasis added): Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
   
   
   
    China is also a party to the DEID. However, like the UDHR, this declaration puts no obligations on states. Taking this limitation into account, the DEID can be construed as a "material source, "[10] providing specific content on religious freedom protections. Furthermore, it may represent the fundamental rights recognized by the international community."[11] If so, then China would be legally obligated to comply with all aspects identified as such under international customary law.
   
   
   
    Article 1 of the Declaration defines the freedom of belief and practice. It also identifies a non-exhaustive list of activities which are to be protected (emphasis added): Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief ... and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.
   
   
   
    Paragraph 2 prohibits the state from impinging upon the freedom of choice:
   
    "No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice."
   
    Furthermore, Article 2 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religious belief:
   
    No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State ... on the grounds of religions or other belief.
   
    Finally, Articles 4 and 7 place positive responsibilities on state authority. The former requires states to prevent discrimination on the basis of religion (emphasis added):
   
    All states shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise, and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, and political, social and cultural life.
   
    All states shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination...
   
    Article 7 requires that legislation be written in a way that results in the realization of religious freedom (emphasis added):
   
    The rights and freedoms set forth in the present Declaration shall be accorded in national legislation in such a manner that everyone shall be able to avail himself of such rights and freedoms in practice.
   
   
   
    As a whole, the ICCPR and Declarations described above suggest that everyone has a right to adopt any religion or belief system of their liking. This right amounts to the freedom of belief and is within the ambit of customary international law. In addition, individuals also have a right to practice their religion or belief system in private or public.
   
   
   
    Although not exhaustive, religious practice includes the right to worship, observe holidays, and teach one's faith. However, as discussed in detail in Part II, unlike the freedom of belief, the freedom to practice is subject to restriction by the state.
   
   
   
    Because China has not ratified the ICCPR, the status of religious freedom enshrined in international customary law takes on added importance. The creation of a customary rule requires two components: 1) state practice; and 2) opinio juris, a psychological element which calls for a belief by the state that the "practice is obligatory by the existence of a rule of law."[12] A state's pronouncements and actions, especially those purported to constitute the practice element, are all used to prove the existence of opino juris.[13] China, through its legislation[14] and its statements at the UN,[15] has added to the large body of-evidence that the freedom of belief is part of customary law. The existence of a customary rule pertaining to religious practice is less clear. However, if such a rule does exist, it allows or state interference.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场