オーストラリアにおける人権保障 : 成文憲法典で人権保障を規定することの意義・研究序説
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
This is an introductory study concerning the implications of the human rights `entrenchment' in a written constitution. In Japan, almost all constitutional scholars argue that the provisions of a bill of rights in a written constitution is necessary for the protection of human rights. However, a court's power to declare the statute's constitutionality sometimes does not work even if the legislative branch of government infringes on human rights. In contrast, the Commonwealth of the Australia Constitution Act [the Constitution] has no bill of rights. But various indices, e.g., Andrew Fagan, The Atlas of HUMAN RIGHTS, sometimes indicate that human rights protection in Japan and Australia is equal. In the first section of this article I discuss some reasons. The second section discusses the meanings of "entrenchment" in constitutional context. To discuss this theme, this article compares the human rights protection in Australia and in Japan. This article does not argue whether or not the Commonwealth of Australia or States of Australia should have a bill of rights. In Australia, the Federal Government has no bill of rights in its written constitution, and did not enact a "human rights act". The Constitution has the articles of explicit rights, and the Commonwealth Parliament created the Acts concerning Aboriginal Rights and the Acts concerning the Human Rights Institutions of the Human Rights Conventions of United Nations, which the Commonwealth Government ratified. Many commentators and case laws of the High Court of Australia, which is supreme court of the Commonwealth of Australia, believe the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia implies human rights, and the common law rights derived from United Kingdom has vital importance. The argument against a bill of rights is that Australia has no reason to enact a "human rights act", or has no need to alter its Constitution to include a bill of rights, because Australia has a common law tradition and an enactment of this nature will not make a significant difference to the present situation. In contrast, Commonwealth of Nations, especially New Zealand and the United Kingdom have acts concerning human rights. Moreover, in Canada and South Africa, their written constitutions have a bill of rights. To analyse status quo of Australia, we must consider these constitutions of Commonwealth countries. In conclusion, I argue that the human rights education and the consciences of judges have vital importance.
著者
関連論文
- 自由権規約4条(緊急事態)についての一般的意見29
- テロ対策法の人権制限 : イギリスの経験から
- 「EU改革条約」とイギリスの「憲法改革」に関する覚書
- 第二期平和研究 (長期的共同研究組織中間報告(2006年度))
- 日本国憲法における「国民」概念の限界と「市民」概念の可能性--イギリス法との比較を通じて
- イギリス憲法における「イギリス国民」(British National)観念の変動--「2002年イギリス海外諸領法」の内容とその意義
- 居住権についての憲法的省察--地域的市民権と居住権
- 日本における外国人の権利及び権利論の歴史と国籍法--「国籍」の憲法学的考察に向けて
- イギリス移民法についての憲法学的考察--ヨーロッパ人権裁判所判決Abdulaziz et al v.United Kingdomを素材として
- 「参政権の性質」論序説--「シチズンシップ」論の批判的考察
- 「裁量」概念の国内裁判所と(地域的)国際裁判所における相違についての一考察--National security概念とderogation条項
- National Securityによる「外国人」の権利制限--イギリス1998年人権法の試練
- 「愛国心」考 : 教育基本法「改正」の問題点を中心に
- 自己情報開示請求権についての一考察
- 資料 2001年イギリス総選挙視察調査報告
- オーストラリア ヴィクトリア州 2006年人権及び責任法憲章
- オーストラリア首都特別地域 2004年人権法
- オーストラリアにおける人権保障 : 成文憲法典で人権保障を規定することの意義・研究序説
- 憲法総論の再検討
- 韓国における移民関連施策および支援状況に関する実態調査報告(6)
- 憲法統治機構講義案(1)
- 憲法統治機構講義案(2)