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
·国民党比共产党好得多,蒋介石比毛泽东高贵得多
·文革是人类历史上最荒唐最愚蠢最无知最残暴之举/郭国汀
·老毛和中共是中华民族的千古罪犯
·赫鲁晓夫评论毛泽东
***(31)《孙文传奇》郭国汀译著
·南郭:关于孙文评价与网友们的争论
·有关孙中山评价的争论
·孙中山、蒋介石与苏俄
·孙中山蒋介石与苏俄的原则性区别
·《孙中山传奇》郭国汀编译
·《共和革命之父孙中山》
·《共和革命之父孙中山》郭国汀编译
·《共和革命之父孙中山》1、身世
·《共和革命之父孙中山》3、孙文共和民主革命
·《共和革命之父孙中山》6、日本政要支持孙文
·《共和革命之父孙中山》8、义和拳乱
·《共和革命之父孙中山》9、革命派与改良派
·《共和革命之父孙中山》10、孙文革命与华侨和留学生
·《共和革命之父孙中山》11、晚清的改革
·《共和革命之父孙中山传奇》12、四处筹资促革命
·《共和革命之父孙中山》13、黄花岗起义
·《共和革命之父孙中山》14、保路运动
·《共和革命之父孙中山》15、武昌起义
·《共和革命之父孙中山》16、袁世凯趁虚劫权
·《共和革命之父孙中山》17、辛亥革命的意义
·《共和革命之父孙中山》18、捍卫革命精神
·《共和革命之父孙中山》19、宋教仁遇刺
·《共和革命之父孙中山》20、二次革命
·《共和革命之父孙中山》21、袁世凯破坏共和体制
·《共和革命之父孙中山》22、中华革命党
·《共和革命之父孙中山》23、袁世凯称帝闹剧
·《共和革命之父孙中山》24、袁世凯众叛亲离
·《共和革命之父孙中山》25、张勋复辟帝制
·《共和革命之父孙中山》26.孙文护宪
·《共和革命之父孙中山》27.著书立说
·《共和革命之父孙中山》28.新文化运动和五四运动
·29.新文化及五四期间的孙文
·《共和革命之父孙中山》30.东山再起
·《共和革命之父孙中山》31、孙文为何联俄容共?
·《共和革命之父孙中山》32.孙越上海宣言
·《共和革命之父孙中山》33.阴差阳错 逼上梁山
·《共和革命之父孙中山》34.以俄为师
·《共和革命之父孙中山》35.反帝遵儒
·《共和革命之父孙中山》36.关税事件
·《共和革命之父孙中山》37.国民党一大
·《共和革命之父孙中山》38.三民主义
·《共和革命之父孙中山》39.屡战屡北
·《共和革命之父孙中山》40.最后岁月
·《共和革命之父孙中山》41.壮志未酬身先死
·国际权威专家对孙文的客观公正评价
·辛亥革命重大历史与现实意义
***(32)《还原蒋介石》郭国汀译著
·郭国汀谈论毛泽东和蒋介石
·我为何研究孙文,蒋介石及中华民国史?
·《民族英雄蒋介石》
·《还原蒋介石》:身世
·《还原蒋介石》:辛亥革命中的蒋介石
·《还原蒋介石》:二次革命
·《还原蒋介石》:中华革命党
·《还原蒋介石》:袁世凯称帝与张勋复辟
·《还原蒋介石》:军阀混战
·《还原蒋介石》:南北军政府对抗
·《还原蒋介石》:辞职将军蒋介石
·《还原蒋介石》:孝子情深
·《还原蒋介石》:情深义重
·《还原蒋介石》:远见卓识 肝胆相照
·《还原蒋介石》:壮志未酬身先死
·《还原蒋介石》:列宁的对华政策
·《还原蒋介石》:中共的由来
·《还原蒋介石》:孙中山的“联俄容共”
·《还原蒋介石》:共产党篡夺国民党的领导权
·《还原蒋介石》:篡党夺权
·《还原蒋介石》:‘联俄联共,扶助农工’的骗局
·《还原蒋介石》:蒋介石领导北伐
·《还原蒋介石》:中山舰事件真相
·《还原蒋介石》:北伐雄师所向无敌
·《还原蒋介石》:中共恶意制造南京事件
·《还原蒋介石》:共产党阴谋操控反蒋运动
·《还原蒋介石》:上海三次起义
·《还原蒋介石》:汪(精卫)陈(独秀)联合宣言
·《还原蒋介石》:四一二清党真相
·《还原蒋介石》:恢复北伐
·《还原蒋介石》:宁汉政府相争
·《民族英雄蒋介石》33、汪精卫武汉政府清共
·《民族英雄蒋介石》34、南昌暴动
·《民族英雄蒋介石》35、蒋介石辞职
·《民族英雄蒋介石》36、蒋介石访日
·《民族英雄蒋介石》37、蒋(介石)宋(美玲)联姻
·《民族英雄蒋介石》38、广州暴动国民党与苏联决裂
·《民族英雄蒋介石》40、济南事件
·《民族英雄蒋介石》39、北伐第二阶段
·《民族英雄蒋介石》41、浩气长存的蔡公时
·《民族英雄蒋介石》42、忍辱负重
·《民族英雄蒋介石》43、北伐最后阶段
·《民族英雄蒋介石》44、日本关东军暗杀张作霖
·《民族英雄蒋介石》45、北伐军胜利汇师北京
·《民族英雄蒋介石》46、满洲易帜归国民政府
[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