modify是什么意思(repair是什么意思)

欢迎关注《人权法评论》2021年第4期摘要翻译

 

★Human Right Law Review★人权法评论《人权法评论》（Human Right Law Review）创立于2001年，旨在提高对人权法和政策问题的认识、知识和讨论该刊以学术为重点，引起了人权界更广泛的兴趣，包括那些在政府、政府间和非政府领域关注法律、政策和实地工作的人权界人士。

从国际法或比较法角度，该刊发表全球或国家范围内关于人权问题的原创文章，同时还出版书评，并有一部分专门分析人权法理学和实践的最新发展编译：黄瑞豪，北京外国语大学本科生审校：徐    奇，暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院讲师 

★目录与摘要★1. 联合国儿童权利委员会在保护LGBT儿童和有同性父母的儿童的权利方面是否做得足够好？Is the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Doing Enough to Protect the Rights of LGBT Children and Children with Same-Sex Parents? 

作者: 保拉‧葛伯（Paula Gerber）, 澳大利亚莫纳什大学法学院教授亚伦‧提摩申科（Aaron Timoshanko）, 澳大利亚南昆士兰大学法律和司法学院讲师摘要: 孩子们经常因为他们的性取向或性别认同而面临歧视、欺凌甚至暴力，由女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋或跨性别者(LGBT群体/性少数群体)父母抚养长大的孩子也是如此。

本文探讨联合国儿童权利委员会为保护性少数群体儿童和性少数群体父母的儿童的权利所做的工作为了做出这一评估，本文批判性地分析了委员会在10年期间的结论意见，其一般意见和对个人来文的看法结论是，虽然近年来委员会在解决性少数群体相关问题方面取得了令人鼓舞的进展，但委员会在保护儿童不受性取向和性别认同歧视方面仍有改进的空间。

Children often face discrimination, bullying and even violence because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, as do children raised by parents who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). This article considers what the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is doing to protect the rights of LGBT children and children with LGBT parents. To make such an assessment, this article critically analyses the Committee’s Concluding Observations over a 10-year period, its General Comments and its Views on Individual Communications. The conclusion reached is that while the Committee has made encouraging progress in recent years when it comes to addressing LGBT related issues, there is still room for improvement in the way the Committee seeks to protect children from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

2. 填补残疾人平等权利保护缺口的渐进方法An Incremental Approach to Filling Protection Gaps in Equality Rights for Persons with Disabilities

作者: 简·理查兹 （Jane Richards）, 香港大学法学院博士研究生 摘要:《残疾人权利公约》保证残疾人在法律面前和法律之下一律平等加拿大的《权利和自由宪章》和中国香港的《基本法》几乎都有相同的平等保障。

澳大利亚对残疾人也有类似的法律平等保障《残疾人权利公约》委员会广泛地解释了这一权利，而宪法法院采取了相称的方法，平衡了实质平等的权利和相互竞争的关切这些权利保护方式之间的张力意味着《残疾人权利公约》被定位为一种替代的权利保护模式，但它不是一种替代的执行机制。

该条呼吁委员会修改其指导意见，向缔约国提出建议，说明如何能够立即实施权利保护方面的渐进式进展，即使在短期内，这些进展无法完全纳入The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) guarantees that persons with disabilities (‘PWD’) are to be equal before and under the law. There are almost identical equality guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Hong Kongs mini constitution – the Basic Law. Australia boasts similar legislative equality guarantees for PWD. The CRPD Committee has interpreted the right broadly, whereas constitutional courts have taken a proportionality approach, balancing the right to substantive equality against competing concerns. The tension between these methods of rights protection means the CRPD is being positioned as an alternative model of rights protection, but it is not an alternative mechanism for enforcement. This article calls on the Committee to modify its guidance to make suggestions to state parties as to how incremental advances in rights protection can be immediately implemented, even if in the short-term, these advances fall short of full inclusion. 

3. 对严重侵犯人权行为真相权的批判性反思A Critical Reflection on the Right to the Truth about Gross Human Rights Violations

作者: 马洛伊斯·范·努鲁斯（Marloes van Noorloos）, 荷兰蒂尔堡法学院刑法副教授摘要: 在国际人权法中，了解严重侵犯人权行为真相的权利逐渐变得更加牢固然而，获得真相权利的内容和轮廓并非没有争议。

目前最紧迫的问题是，社会的真相权范围、追求真相的范围(查明真相或更广泛的历史真相)、追求真相与官方承认的关系等关于严重侵犯人权行为，这篇文章转向真相寻求和记忆的多学科研究，该研究提供了关于大规模暴行后真相作用的丰富见解，有助于揭示了解真相权可能产生的影响。

因此，它提供了对真理权的批判性反思，以考虑它如何能够发挥有价值的功能The right to the truth about gross human rights violations is gradually becoming more firmly entrenched in international human rights law. However, the content and contours of the right to the truth are not without controversy. Some of the most pressing issues that have arisen are the extent of society’s right to the truth, the scope of the truth that it pursues (fact-finding or broader historical truth) and the relationship between truth seeking and official acknowledgment.

This article turns to multidisciplinary research about truth seeking and memory with regard to gross human rights violations, which provides rich insights into the role of truth in the aftermath of mass atrocities that can shed light on the possible implications of the right to the truth. It thus provides a critical reflection on the right to the truth, in order to consider how it could perform a valuable function.

4. 突破临界点:美洲体系能否容纳堕胎权？Pushing Past the Tipping Point: Can the Inter-American System Accommodate Abortion Rights?

作者：帕特里夏·帕拉西奥斯·苏洛阿加（Patricia Palacios Zuloaga），埃塞克斯大学法学院讲师摘要：虽然反堕胎活动人士已经成功地推动在美国各地限制堕胎，但生殖权利活动人士已经在拉丁美洲各地动员起来，推动放宽严格的反堕胎政策。

这些截然相反的方向重新引起了人们的兴趣，人权方面的论点最能支持在拉丁美洲扩大堕胎的机会迄今为止，这一领域的进展主要依赖于以下认识：禁止残忍、不人道和有辱人格的待遇要求各国允许在最可怕的情况下堕胎然而，该地区绝大多数寻求堕胎的妇女没有资格享受该法律所载的小范围豁免。

因此，希望将堕胎条款扩展到残酷范式之外的活动人士，需要找到在普遍保守的拉丁美洲地区能够站得住的论据在这种探究中，美洲体系(多少有些令人惊讶)可以提供关键，以对结构性歧视的微妙理解和对妇女苦难的公开意愿为基础，围绕生殖权利构建一种新的论述。

While anti-abortion activists have been successful in pushing to restrict access to abortion across the USA, reproductive rights activists have been mobilizing across Latin America to push for the easement of strict anti-abortion policies. These opposing directions of travel have renewed interest in which human rights arguments would best support the expansion of access to abortion in Latin America. To date, progress in this area has mostly relied on understanding that the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment requires states to allow abortions in the direst of circumstances. However, the vast majority of women in the region who seek abortions do not qualify for the small exemptions contained in the law. Activists looking to expand abortion provisions beyond the cruelty paradigm therefore need to find arguments that can stand firm in a generally conservative Latin American region. In this search, the Inter-American System could, somewhat surprisingly, provide keys to constructing a new discourse surrounding reproductive rights based on a nuanced understanding of structural discrimination and a willingness to visibilise the suffering of women.

5. 经济和社会权利、赔偿和广泛暴力的后果：非洲人权体系及其以外Economic and Social Rights, Reparations and the Aftermath of Widespread Violence: The African Human Rights System and Beyond

作者：费利克斯·E·托雷斯（Felix E Torres），诺丁汉大学法学院博士研究员摘要：本文根据非洲人权机构的判例，在纠正过去的弊端和保障广泛暴力事件后，探讨了国家当局在经济和社会权利方面的双重责任。

还讨论了作为非洲各机构和人权法实践基础的两个备选框架第一种观点认为，国家是对个人的威胁，有责任纠正违反尊重和保护权利义务的侵权行为的后果第二种观点认为，在广泛的暴力事件发生后，国家是权利的积极保证人，负责改善受暴力影响和未受暴力影响的人们的福祉。

鉴于这两种方法在非洲范围内产生的可能性和局限性，本文主张采用第二种方法This article examines the dual responsibility of state authorities to repair past abuses and guarantee economic and social rights after episodes of widespread violence according to the jurisprudence of African human rights bodies. Two alternative frameworks underlying the practice of African bodies and human rights law more broadly are discussed. The first portrays the state as a threat to the individual, responsible for redressing the consequences of violations in breach of duties to respect and protect rights. The second understands the state as an active guarantor of rights in the aftermath of widespread abuses, responsible for improving the well-being of people affected and not affected by violence. In light of the possibilities and limitations that arise from both approaches in the African context, the article advocates the second.

6. 贫穷是错误的认识：反歧视法在欧洲扮演什么角色？Poverty as Misrecognition: What Role for Antidiscrimination Law in Europe? 

作者：莎拉·甘蒂（Sarah Ganty），美国耶鲁大学法学院法学博士候选人，圣路易斯-布鲁塞尔和布鲁塞尔自由大学法学院助理教授摘要：人们普遍认为，由于性别和种族等传统地位原因，受到歧视的受害者在穷人和受教育程度低的人群中所占比例过高。

许多国家、欧洲和国际的反歧视条款，禁止基于个人社会经济状况的歧视然而，令人吃惊的是，这在实践中几乎没有应用本文以比利时、法国、英国和欧洲的资料为基础，认为禁止基于社会条件的歧视是保护弱势群体，特别是在错误认识问题上的授权法律工具。

我们认为有四项因素：禁止基于社会条件的歧视，体现在直接审查申请人社会经济弱势状况方面的决定性作用，在打击对穷人的陈规定型观念和污名化方面的作用，在多重歧视情况下发挥重要的跨领域作用，以及它在某些歧视事件中的专属适用性。

It is widely agreed that victims of discrimination on traditional status grounds such as gender and race are overrepresented among the poor and undereducated. People living in poverty also face discrimination because of their socioeconomic situation. Many national, European and international antidiscrimination provisions prohibit discrimination on grounds that are related to a person’s socioeconomic situation. It is striking, however, that this is hardly applied in practice. On the basis of domestic—Belgian, French and British—and European material, this paper argues that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of social condition is an empowering legal tool in the protection of disadvantaged people, especially regarding issues of misrecognition. Four reasons for this are considered: the determining role of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of social condition in applying a direct scrutiny of the socioeconomic underprivileged situation of the applicants, its role in combating stereotypes and stigma against poor people, its important cross-cutting function in cases of multiple discrimination, and its exclusive applicability in some occurrences of discrimination.

7. 仇恨言论与欧洲人权法院：冒犯、震惊或骚扰的权利到底发生了什么？Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights: Whatever Happened to the Right to Offend, Shock or Disturb?

作者：雅各布·姆昌加马（Jacob Mchangama），丹麦贾斯蒂亚法律智库执行主任娜塔莉·阿尔基维亚杜（Natalie Alkiviadou），丹麦贾斯蒂亚法律智库高级研究员摘要：在汉迪塞德诉英国一案中，欧洲人权法院(ECHR)认为，言论自由的权利，根据《欧洲人权公约》第10条的规定，不仅保护那些受到欢迎的表达，也保护那些冒犯、震惊或打扰的表达。

然而，自那时以来，在允许限制仇恨言论方面，欧洲人权法院制定了大量前后矛盾的判例法对于攻击性、令人震惊和不安的言论而言，这一情形导致（人们）严重怀疑欧洲人权法院真正保护的程度在定性和定量的背景下，作者认为，法院和以前的委员会对仇恨言论采取了过度限制性的做法，未能充分保护关于争议性问题的政治言论，包括对公职人员和政府机构的批评，并创造了一套前后矛盾、甚至武断的判例法。

相反，认识到需要平衡表达自由和限制仇恨言论的司法管辖，要求采取更令人信服的控制仇恨言论的方法，为言论自由提供了强有力的保护，同时为国家限制最极端形式的非暴力仇恨言论留下了空间In Handyside v. The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held that the right to freedom of expression, as provided for in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects not only expressions that are favorably received but also those that ‘offend, shock or disturb’. Yet, the Court has since developed a substantial body of inconsistent case-law allowing restrictions on ‘hate speech’ that severely questions the degree to which offensive, shocking and disturbing speech is truly protected by the ECHR. Against a qualitative and quantitative backdrop, the authors argue that the Court and previously the Commission, have adopted an overly restrictive approach to hate speech, which fails to provide adequate protection to political speech on controversial issues, including criticism of public officials and government institutions and has created an inconsistent and even arbitrary body of case law. Instead, jurisdictions that recognize a need to balance the freedom of expression with limits on hate speech have adopted more convincing approaches of hate speech, providing a robust protection of free speech while leaving room for the State to curtail the most extreme forms of non-violent hate speech.

8. 泽维兹达·万科娃（Zvezda Vankova），《循环移民与中欧和东欧移民工人的权利——欧盟对三方共赢解决方案的承诺》(Springer, 2020, xxii +261 pp, Open Access) eBook ISBN 9783030526894 (eBook)

Zvezda Vankova, Circular Migration and the Rights of Migrant Workers in Central and Eastern Europe. The EU Promise of a Triple Win Solution (Springer, 2020, xxii +261 pp, Open Access) eBook ISBN 9783030526894 (eBook)

作者：迭戈·阿科斯塔（Diego Acosta），布里斯托尔欧洲和移民法律大学教授，维也纳人类科学研究所客座研究员摘要：万科娃写了一本非常重要的书，探讨了一个中心概念，即循环移民，这个概念在政策层面一直是争论的主题，特别是在欧盟，已经有十多年了。

这一概念将带来被称为“三方共赢”的解决方案，这一方案将使原籍国、目的地国以及最终移民的工人自身受益作者使用的定义是2007年全球移民与发展论坛采用的定义，即循环移民是指人员在国家之间的流动，包括临时或较长期的流动，如果这种流动是自愿的，并与原籍国和目的地国的劳动力需求有关，则对所有相关方都有利。

Vankova has written a very important book enquiring about a central concept, that of circular migration, that has been the subject of debate at policy level, particularly in the EU, for longer than a decade. Such concept would promise what has been labelled as the ‘triple win solution’, one that would benefit countries of origin, states of destination, and, finally, migrant workers themselves. The working definition that the author uses is the one adopted at the Global Forum on Migration and Development in 2007: ‘Circular Migration is the fluid movement of people between countries, including temporary or more permanent movement which, when it occurs voluntarily and is linked to the labour needs of countries of origin and destination, can be beneficial to all involved.

9. 娜塔莎·马夫罗尼科拉（Natasa Mavronicola），《欧洲人权法院第3条下的酷刑、不人道和退化:绝对的权利和绝对的错误》(Hart Publishing, 2021, x + 209 pp, £67.50) ISBN 978-1-50990-299-6 (hb)

Natasa Mavronicola, Torture, Inhumanity and Degradation under Article 3 of the ECHR: Absolute Rights and Absolute Wrongs (Hart Publishing, 2021, x + 209 pp, £67.50) ISBN 978-1-50990-299-6 (hb)

作者：埃布鲁·德米尔（Ebru Demir），土耳其安卡拉伊尔迪里姆·贝亚齐特大学（Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University ）法学院摘要：什么是绝对权利?它与非绝对权利有什么不同?在人权实践中，绝对性是如何解释的?在《欧洲人权法院第3条下的酷刑、不人道和侮辱：绝对的权利和绝对的错误》中，作者娜塔莎·马夫罗尼科拉，通过特别关注《欧洲人权公约》第3条，解决了这些重要(但相当困难)的问题，并深入探讨了绝对性的含义。

正如马夫罗尼科拉所强调的，尽管学术界对绝对的正确(和错误)有极大的兴趣，绝对的真正意义仍然不清楚和有争议What is an absolute right? In what ways is it different from non-absolute rights? How is absoluteness interpreted in human rights practice? In Torture, Inhumanity and Degradation under Article 3 of the ECHR: Absolute Rights and Absolute Wrongs, the author, Natasa Mavronicola, tackles these significant (and yet quite difficult) questions and delves into the meaning of absoluteness by specifically focusing on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR or the Convention): the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As Mavronicola underlines, despite the great interest in absolute rights (and wrongs) in academic circles, the very meaning of absoluteness remains unclear and contested. Mavronicola’s thorough engagement with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR or the Court) and the doctrine on Article 3 clarifies and concretises the letter and spirit of the article and provides readers with a better understanding of the absolute nature of the prohibitions in it.。

结语以上观点不代表本平台立场本公众号由暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院讲师徐奇博士及其运营团队运营，旨在介绍和分析与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

图片来源|百度图片  若有侵权，请联系删除图文编辑|简安琪  大连海事大学大学法学院研究生    审       校| 徐  奇  暨南大学法学院讲师欢迎关注、转发或分享朋友圈，如需转载独家刊文请注明“文章转自法眼看南海公众号”

免责声明：本站所有信息均搜集自互联网，并不代表本站观点，本站不对其真实合法性负责。如有信息侵犯了您的权益，请告知，本站将立刻处理。联系QQ：1640731186