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
·我为郑恩宠辩护的前前后后 郭国汀
·上海普通市民感受的郑恩宠大律师
·关于郑恩宠案我的声明
·我为郑恩宠律师辩护
·一切源于郑恩宠案,可敬的国安兄弟请自重!
·郑恩宠聘请辩护人的真相
·郑恩宠聘请辩护律师真相之二
·真为这位北京律师脸红!
·张思之大律师冒着酷暑赴看守所会见郑恩宠
·上海监狱当局婉拒郑恩宠的辩护律师会见
·关于会见在押的郑恩宠的第二次申请函
·揭开“时代精英“画皮
·答时代精英,
·再答时代精英教导
·向张思之律师,郑恩宠律师学习,致敬!
·南郭:仗义执言的律师还是没良心的律师
·驳“文律”兄郑案高论/南郭
·中国最需要像郑恩宠这样的律师
·凡跟郭国汀贴者一律入选黑名单
·批驳李洪东之首恶律师说!
·历史岂容任意伪造!
·惊闻郑恩宠律师夫人蒋美丽被拘捕!
·郑恩宠案二审会维持原判,辩护律师难辞其咎。
·求名求利的律师代表
·答L君之三项基本原则
·郑恩宠案网友评论
·网友支持或反对郑恩宠的评论
·支持或反对郑恩宠的网友评论之二
·中国律师声援支持郑恩宠
·吴国策律师:“求名求利的律师代表——某律师的心里”系他人盗名发表的声明
·中国律师声援支持郑恩宠律师
·网警\网友\特务与郑恩宠案
·郑恩宠律师的最后一篇代理词
·关于记者杨金志、陈斌严重侵犯郑恩宠律师名誉权的律师函
·郭国汀律师如果你还是个真正的男人的话,请你勇于承担败诉的责任。
·郑恩宠案上海当局特务什么下流无耻的手段皆用
·谋害郑恩宠的凶手是谁?
·郑恩宠案上海高院驳回上诉后网友们的评论
·请记住一位伟大的律师英雄——郑恩宠/郭国汀
***(四)香港联中公司与厦门国际贸易信托投资公司国际贸易争议再审案
·司法腐败的典型案例
·最高法院无理拖宕九年拒不下判再审案代理词
·反了你!竟敢不尊敬我大法官!
·就十五载官司致最高法院法官的公开函
·中国法官如何让吾尊敬/南郭
·最高法院的院长们为何威胁郭国汀律师?
***(五)涉外亿元合同诈骗案
·涉港“亿元”合同诈骗案之辩护词/郭国汀
·惊心动魄的辩护
·涉外亿元诈骗案致有关负责人的公开函
·致福建省委、省政府各位领导及福州市委、市府各位负责人的公开信
·关于本司与福州市粮油公司贸易纠纷案及因此而被无辜拘留、逮捕者至福州市、福建省、中国政府、公安、检察各部门负责人公开函:
·亿元合同诈骗案至福州市市长函
·亿元合同诈骗案至福州市委书记函
·关于亿元合同诈骗案至福州市委书记的函
·亿元合同诈骗案至中央政法委书记紧急呼吁函
·福州市公安局插手涉港经济纠纷造成海内外不良影响事
·亿元合同诈骗案郭国汀律师与龚雄副市长会谈备忘录
***(59)(五)郭国汀律师名案劲辩
***(1)政治良心案
·力虹(张建红)煽动颠覆国家政权案的咄咄怪事
·郭国汀力虹被中共无罪重判的真实原因
·评论严正责令胡锦涛立即无条件释放朱宇飙律师!
·简析严正学所谓颠覆国家政权案
·严正学所谓[涉嫌颠覆国家政权案]必须公开审判
·强烈谴责胡锦涛公然践踏法律任意拘禁人律师的恶劣行径
·东洲惨案发生的根源——呼吁由联合国组织调查团进行公正调查/郭国汀
·评吴爱中张惠刘兰(法轮功讲真相)案的两审判决
·郑恩宠律师“为境外非法提供国家秘密罪”辩护词
·律师关于郑恩宠案的二审辩护词
·郑恩宠非法为境外提供国家秘密罪刑事申诉状
·郭国汀:我为什么为清水君辩护
·作家张林又被刑事拘留!
·声援支持杨天水和张林
·杨天水是令人敬佩的民主战士
·辩护律师郭国汀获准会见杨天水
·坚决支持李国涛先生的义举,反对极权专制独裁政治!
·师涛是当代中国英雄——
·六四与师涛
·师涛为中国记者受难为自由民主坐牢
·郭国汀指雅虎遵守当地法律说无法律根据
·辩护律师郭国汀获准会见师涛
·长沙国安局无理拒绝辩护律师会见师涛
·答mironet质疑何谓真正的中国人权律师?
·向刘晓波,余杰先生学习,致敬!
·当一名律师无辜失去自由时——无题
***(2)民告官---行政诉讼案强制拆迁案
·国家赔偿行政诉讼案代理词
·政府欺诈何时休?!评一起政府参与非法强制拆迁案
·关于苏州市丽人服饰有限公司被非法强制拆迁案的法律分析意见
·苏州“历史文化街区”拆迁案代理词
·苏州市衣丽人服饰有限公司诉苏州市相城区建设局非法作出<房屋拆迁许可证>行政诉讼争议案
·关于苏州市丽人服饰有限公司被非法强制拆迁案的法律分析意见
·苏州市衣丽人服饰有限公司诉苏州市相城区建设局非法作出<房屋拆迁许可证>行政诉讼争议案代理词
·烟台「历史文化街区」拆迁案代理词
[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