论欧洲人权机制对欧盟成员国实际拘束力的差异及原因
|
摘要
自近代以降,人权一直是人类社会中的核心问题,在近现代历史上曾出现了各种各样的思想学说和制度实践。第二次世界大战结束以后,随着联合国的建立,人权更是成为国际社会中最为活跃的因素之一,因为与和平、发展相并列,人权是联合国的三大目标之一。随着全球化的深入发展,人权的全球治理规范体系开始逐步形成,人权成为国家间交往的一个常设性话题。在西方也已经基本形成所谓的人权高于主权的舆论共识。那么,面对人权问题在国际政治中迅猛发展的势头和日益深化的影响,国家主权是否已经开始被人权解构?主权国家构成的威斯特伐利亚体系是否正在衰落并最终走向瓦解?当代国际体系中人权与主权的关系究竟发生什么样的变化?西方人权高于主权的观念是否已经真正具有完全的普遍性?
为了回答这些问题,本文以迄今发展最为成熟的欧洲人权机制以及欧盟成员国对该机制的反应为研究对象,借助英国学派的国际社会理论,专注探讨欧洲人权保护机制以及该机制运作框架下欧盟各成员国国内涉及人权保护的法律和政治制度的改革和调适,深入探析欧盟不同成员国对同一个人权保护机制所提出要求的不同反应,以及这一人权保护机制对不同的依然拥有主权的欧盟成员国的影响,从而求证在欧盟这一特殊国际社会中,“人权”因素和“主权”因素到底是哪一个发挥最为基础性的作用。本文之所以选择欧洲人权机制和欧盟进行考察,主要是因为前者是学术界公认的发展最充分、最系统、并具有超国家因素的人权保护机制,而后者是一体化程度最高、成员国家间合作最为深入、也是人权保护最积极的区域。从这两者入手进行研究,可以更为深刻地理解和认识当前国际体系中人权与主权之间的关系。
本论文设计的模型是将欧洲人权机制设定为控制变量,欧盟成员国的主权设定为自变量,而各国在人权保护方面的差异、或者说对欧洲人权机制反应的不同设定为因变量。本论文的基本假设是:如果欧盟成员国人权保护方面的差异较大,则表示主权的作用较大;如果人权保护的差异较小,则表示主权的作用较小。以此为基础,本文进一步剖析较为抽象层面的人权与主权之间的关系。
以《欧洲人权公约》和欧洲人权法院为核心而建立的欧洲人权机制,对欧盟各成员国的人权保护政策和国内涉及人权保护的法律制度、甚至政治体制等都造成了深远的影响。无论是从规范的角度、还是从实际的运作过程来看,它都具备高于欧盟成员国司法主权的权威。为了验证该机制的超国家性,本论文首先从该机制的机构依托即欧洲委员会开始,分析了该组织的成立背景和历史沿革、经历的危机和最新的发展、以及它同欧盟之间的关系等。欧洲委员会在组织起草《欧洲人权公约》时,有意弱化其超国家的司法功能,只设立欧洲人权委员会,对公约的理解和遵守基本上由成员国自己决定。1959年欧洲人权法院只是作为临时机构而成立,1998年底才成为常设机构。但凭借其公正性、渐进性和灵活性等特征,欧洲人权机制已成为欧洲人权保护的神经中枢,通过各国法制的交点,实时地放射到各个成员国,发挥着欧洲“宪法法院”的作用。从上世纪80年代后期到2009年《里斯本条约》的生效这一期间,欧洲人权机制对欧盟及其成员国而言其权威是稳定、有效而成熟的。并且,对于欧盟成员国而言,欧洲委员会框架下的欧洲人权机制是它们的共同变量。这是本论文将其设定为控制变量的依据。
本论文接下来深入考察了五个有代表性的欧盟成员国同欧洲人权机制的关系。一方面看到欧洲人权机制对欧盟成员国司法主权的实质性影响,即欧盟成员国的立法权和司法审判权都受到欧洲人权机制的制约。但另一方面,发现欧洲人权机制对欧盟成员国的司法主权的实际拘束力却存在很大的不同。欧盟成员国同欧洲人权机制的关系并不一致,它们对欧洲人权机制有不同的态度和反应,而且各国的实际人权保护状况也存在的明显差异。根据本论文所应用的理论假设,可以看出:即使在欧盟这一一体化程度极高的特殊国际社会中,“主权”仍然是决定国家行为的基础性要素,人权地位虽然在不断上升,但是并没有简单地表现为高于主权。
最后,本论文认为,在欧盟这一特殊的国际社会中,虽然具有显著的世界社会因素,并且欧盟国际社会正在向完全的世界社会过渡。但是就目前而言,决定人权保护状况的主导性因素仍然是包括传统主权观念和国家利益等在内的主权因素。民族国家仍然是欧盟社会中最为重要的行为体,其主权并没有受到刚性的制约,国家间的“国际社会”仍然是欧盟人权治理基本格局的决定性因素。现实的国际社会中,“主权”不仅没有屈服于“人权”,而且人权对主权的解构是有限的。虽然由主权国家构成的威斯特伐利亚国际体系正面临一系列的冲击,其中包括人权对主权的冲击,但是即便在欧盟这一高度一体化的区域组织中,成员国的国家主权依然在国际人权机制(欧洲人权机制)的运行中起着重要的作用,因此,国家主权依然在当今国际政治中具有主导性,包括人权在内的任何国际问题,仍然只有在主权国家的政治框架内才能够得到治理和解决。
The issue of human rights has always been important during the history of human society. It has developed a lot of theories and practices. After World War II and the establishment of UN, human rights is becoming more and more active in the international society, as human rights is one of the three goals of UN. Nowadays, the system of global government norms on human rights is almost ready. It’s one of the most concerned issues in the international discussion. Moreover, the public opinions in western countries come to think that human rights are more important than sovereignty. Now, the question arises, is it true that human rights are above sovereignty and the system of Westphalia is dying?
Following the International Society Theory of‘English School’, the paper worked on the reforms and adjustments of EU member states in the operation of the European Human Rights Regime (EHRR). The purpose of this work is to tell the EU member states’different attitudes toward the EHRR, or the different influences on the EU member states. Then the paper tries to answer this question: which is more important between sovereignty and human rights in the special international society of EU? The case is meaningful as the EHRR is the most supranational and effective in the world, and EU member states have good records on the protection of human rights.
The model that the paper employed is following: It regards EHRR as a controlled variable, the sovereignty of EU member states as an independent variable, and the different attitudes toward the EHRR as induced variable. If there is many differences, we can say that sovereignty is more important than human rights.
Mainly composed by European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), EHRR has impacted the EU member states deeply in the field of human rights policies, legal norms and even political constitutions. To some extent, EHRR is higher than EU member states’sovereignty. So, the most important characteristic of EHRR is supranationality. To understand EHRR completely, the paper firstly introduced Council of Europe (COE), including its history, backgrounds and relationship with EU. When ECHR was drafted, the legal function of the ECHR was intently ignored. There was only European Human Rights Commission(EHRC) without ECtHR. Member states of COE could explain ECHR on their own account. Then, the ECtHR was established as a temporary body in 1959. ECtHR turned into a permanent establishment In 1998. ECtHR got more and more authority with the merits of impartiality, gradualism and flexibility. Now, it has developed into European Constitutional Court from a cold war instrument, from the late 1980s to Treaty of Lisbon of 2009. The EHRR’s authority on EU’s member states is steady, mature, and effective. Moreover, EHRR is the common external variable to EU and its member states. So EGRR is considered as control variable.
However, the super’nationalism of ECRR is all a fa?ade. The paper studied 5 EU member states,. The cases indicate that the relations between the ECRR and EU member states are much more complicated than what the norms say. Although the ECRR has a high statues in every domestic legal system of EU member state and impacts on the their legal sovereignty in essence, there are so many differences in complying with the demands of ECRR. According to the model that the paper employed, the paper comes to the conclusion that the sovereignty of EU member state is still dominating the basal orders in the special international society of EU and sovereignty is not subject to human rights. In conclusion, The author think that the sovereignty is still the ultimate power in the governace of human rights at least for now. It’s hard to say that‘human rights’is higher than the‘sovereignty’. The paper regards EU as a special international society, in other words, it is not only an“international society”, but also a“world society”. Then the“international society”dominates the fundamental order of the EU society, though the“world society”has been increasing significantly. The Westphalia system is impacted by many factors, including human rights; however, the sovereignty is still the dominating factor in European Regime of Human Rights. The process of global governance will still go along in the framework of sovereignty system.
为了回答这些问题,本文以迄今发展最为成熟的欧洲人权机制以及欧盟成员国对该机制的反应为研究对象,借助英国学派的国际社会理论,专注探讨欧洲人权保护机制以及该机制运作框架下欧盟各成员国国内涉及人权保护的法律和政治制度的改革和调适,深入探析欧盟不同成员国对同一个人权保护机制所提出要求的不同反应,以及这一人权保护机制对不同的依然拥有主权的欧盟成员国的影响,从而求证在欧盟这一特殊国际社会中,“人权”因素和“主权”因素到底是哪一个发挥最为基础性的作用。本文之所以选择欧洲人权机制和欧盟进行考察,主要是因为前者是学术界公认的发展最充分、最系统、并具有超国家因素的人权保护机制,而后者是一体化程度最高、成员国家间合作最为深入、也是人权保护最积极的区域。从这两者入手进行研究,可以更为深刻地理解和认识当前国际体系中人权与主权之间的关系。
本论文设计的模型是将欧洲人权机制设定为控制变量,欧盟成员国的主权设定为自变量,而各国在人权保护方面的差异、或者说对欧洲人权机制反应的不同设定为因变量。本论文的基本假设是:如果欧盟成员国人权保护方面的差异较大,则表示主权的作用较大;如果人权保护的差异较小,则表示主权的作用较小。以此为基础,本文进一步剖析较为抽象层面的人权与主权之间的关系。
以《欧洲人权公约》和欧洲人权法院为核心而建立的欧洲人权机制,对欧盟各成员国的人权保护政策和国内涉及人权保护的法律制度、甚至政治体制等都造成了深远的影响。无论是从规范的角度、还是从实际的运作过程来看,它都具备高于欧盟成员国司法主权的权威。为了验证该机制的超国家性,本论文首先从该机制的机构依托即欧洲委员会开始,分析了该组织的成立背景和历史沿革、经历的危机和最新的发展、以及它同欧盟之间的关系等。欧洲委员会在组织起草《欧洲人权公约》时,有意弱化其超国家的司法功能,只设立欧洲人权委员会,对公约的理解和遵守基本上由成员国自己决定。1959年欧洲人权法院只是作为临时机构而成立,1998年底才成为常设机构。但凭借其公正性、渐进性和灵活性等特征,欧洲人权机制已成为欧洲人权保护的神经中枢,通过各国法制的交点,实时地放射到各个成员国,发挥着欧洲“宪法法院”的作用。从上世纪80年代后期到2009年《里斯本条约》的生效这一期间,欧洲人权机制对欧盟及其成员国而言其权威是稳定、有效而成熟的。并且,对于欧盟成员国而言,欧洲委员会框架下的欧洲人权机制是它们的共同变量。这是本论文将其设定为控制变量的依据。
本论文接下来深入考察了五个有代表性的欧盟成员国同欧洲人权机制的关系。一方面看到欧洲人权机制对欧盟成员国司法主权的实质性影响,即欧盟成员国的立法权和司法审判权都受到欧洲人权机制的制约。但另一方面,发现欧洲人权机制对欧盟成员国的司法主权的实际拘束力却存在很大的不同。欧盟成员国同欧洲人权机制的关系并不一致,它们对欧洲人权机制有不同的态度和反应,而且各国的实际人权保护状况也存在的明显差异。根据本论文所应用的理论假设,可以看出:即使在欧盟这一一体化程度极高的特殊国际社会中,“主权”仍然是决定国家行为的基础性要素,人权地位虽然在不断上升,但是并没有简单地表现为高于主权。
最后,本论文认为,在欧盟这一特殊的国际社会中,虽然具有显著的世界社会因素,并且欧盟国际社会正在向完全的世界社会过渡。但是就目前而言,决定人权保护状况的主导性因素仍然是包括传统主权观念和国家利益等在内的主权因素。民族国家仍然是欧盟社会中最为重要的行为体,其主权并没有受到刚性的制约,国家间的“国际社会”仍然是欧盟人权治理基本格局的决定性因素。现实的国际社会中,“主权”不仅没有屈服于“人权”,而且人权对主权的解构是有限的。虽然由主权国家构成的威斯特伐利亚国际体系正面临一系列的冲击,其中包括人权对主权的冲击,但是即便在欧盟这一高度一体化的区域组织中,成员国的国家主权依然在国际人权机制(欧洲人权机制)的运行中起着重要的作用,因此,国家主权依然在当今国际政治中具有主导性,包括人权在内的任何国际问题,仍然只有在主权国家的政治框架内才能够得到治理和解决。
The issue of human rights has always been important during the history of human society. It has developed a lot of theories and practices. After World War II and the establishment of UN, human rights is becoming more and more active in the international society, as human rights is one of the three goals of UN. Nowadays, the system of global government norms on human rights is almost ready. It’s one of the most concerned issues in the international discussion. Moreover, the public opinions in western countries come to think that human rights are more important than sovereignty. Now, the question arises, is it true that human rights are above sovereignty and the system of Westphalia is dying?
Following the International Society Theory of‘English School’, the paper worked on the reforms and adjustments of EU member states in the operation of the European Human Rights Regime (EHRR). The purpose of this work is to tell the EU member states’different attitudes toward the EHRR, or the different influences on the EU member states. Then the paper tries to answer this question: which is more important between sovereignty and human rights in the special international society of EU? The case is meaningful as the EHRR is the most supranational and effective in the world, and EU member states have good records on the protection of human rights.
The model that the paper employed is following: It regards EHRR as a controlled variable, the sovereignty of EU member states as an independent variable, and the different attitudes toward the EHRR as induced variable. If there is many differences, we can say that sovereignty is more important than human rights.
Mainly composed by European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), EHRR has impacted the EU member states deeply in the field of human rights policies, legal norms and even political constitutions. To some extent, EHRR is higher than EU member states’sovereignty. So, the most important characteristic of EHRR is supranationality. To understand EHRR completely, the paper firstly introduced Council of Europe (COE), including its history, backgrounds and relationship with EU. When ECHR was drafted, the legal function of the ECHR was intently ignored. There was only European Human Rights Commission(EHRC) without ECtHR. Member states of COE could explain ECHR on their own account. Then, the ECtHR was established as a temporary body in 1959. ECtHR turned into a permanent establishment In 1998. ECtHR got more and more authority with the merits of impartiality, gradualism and flexibility. Now, it has developed into European Constitutional Court from a cold war instrument, from the late 1980s to Treaty of Lisbon of 2009. The EHRR’s authority on EU’s member states is steady, mature, and effective. Moreover, EHRR is the common external variable to EU and its member states. So EGRR is considered as control variable.
However, the super’nationalism of ECRR is all a fa?ade. The paper studied 5 EU member states,. The cases indicate that the relations between the ECRR and EU member states are much more complicated than what the norms say. Although the ECRR has a high statues in every domestic legal system of EU member state and impacts on the their legal sovereignty in essence, there are so many differences in complying with the demands of ECRR. According to the model that the paper employed, the paper comes to the conclusion that the sovereignty of EU member state is still dominating the basal orders in the special international society of EU and sovereignty is not subject to human rights. In conclusion, The author think that the sovereignty is still the ultimate power in the governace of human rights at least for now. It’s hard to say that‘human rights’is higher than the‘sovereignty’. The paper regards EU as a special international society, in other words, it is not only an“international society”, but also a“world society”. Then the“international society”dominates the fundamental order of the EU society, though the“world society”has been increasing significantly. The Westphalia system is impacted by many factors, including human rights; however, the sovereignty is still the dominating factor in European Regime of Human Rights. The process of global governance will still go along in the framework of sovereignty system.
引文
6秦亚青:《关于构建中国特色外交理论的若干思考》,《外交评论》,2008年第1期,第9页。
7[法]米海依尔·戴尔玛斯一马蒂:《世界法的三个挑战》,法律出版社,2001年版,第2页。
8朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年4月出版。
9杨成铭:《人权保护区域化的尝试:欧洲人权机构的视角》,中国法制出版社,2000年1月版。
10莫纪宏等:《人权法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,2008年版。
11万鄂湘等:《欧洲人权法院判例评述》,湖北人民出版社,1999年版。
12李步云,孙世彦:《人权法案例选编》,高等教育出版社,2008年版。
13朱晓青:《欧洲一体化进程中人权法律地位的演变》,《法学研究》2002年05期。
14傅思明:《欧洲人权公约对英国司法审查制度的影响》,《法学杂志》2001年4期。
15莫纪宏等:《人权法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,2008年版,前言。
16该书的中文译名为:欧洲人权法原则与判例。参见:[英] Clare Ovey,Robin White,何志鹏,孙璐译:《欧洲人权法原则与判例》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2006年版。
17 Alastair Mowbray, Cases and Materials on The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press 2007.
18 J.G. Merrills, Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights, Manchester University Press 2001.
19 Beddard, Human Rights and Europe, Cambridge University press, 1993.
20 J.G. Merrills, The Development of International law by the European Court of human Rights, Manchester University Press 1995.
21 Yourow, The margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, 1996
22Robert Blackburn(ed.), Fundamental rights in Europe: the European convention on human rights and its member states,1950-2000, Oxford University Press 2001.
23 Helen Keller(ed.), A Europe of Rights:The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press 2008.
24 Gardner, Aspects of Incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into Domestic Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law and the British Institute of Human Rights, London, 1993.
25 Barkhuysen, Execution of Strasbourg and Geneva Human Rights Decisions in the National Legal Order, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1999
26 C. A. Gearty, European Civil Liberties and the European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997
27Mireille Delmas-Marty, The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: international protection versus national restrictions, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992.
31 Barry Buzan,“The English School as a Research Program: an overview and a proposal for reconvening”. BISA Conference, Manchester, December 1999.
32石斌:《‘英国学派’国际关系理论概观》,《历史教学问题》,2005年第2期,第15页。
33石斌:《‘英国学派’国际关系理论概观》,《历史教学问题》,2005年第2期,第9页。
34唐小松,黄忠:《英国学派的国际社会观及其对欧洲一体化的解读》,《教学与研究》,2006年第3期,第77页。
35“探求‘英国学派’及国际社会——巴里?布赞与刘德斌对话”,《中国社会科学报》, 2010年3月12日。
36 Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984, p.1.
37石斌:《‘英国学派’国际关系理论概观》,《历史教学问题》,2005年第2期,第12页。
38“探求‘英国学派’及国际社会——巴里·布赞与刘德斌对话”,《中国社会科学报》, 2010年3月12日,网上来源:http://www.qstheory.cn/wz/xues/201003/t20100312_23486.htm
39 Barry Buzan,“From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization”, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
40 Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, New York, 1992, pp.13-24.
41详见Hedley Bull, "International Theory: The Case for A Classical Approach", World Politics 18/3 (April 1966), pp.361-377。
42 Hedley Bull,“Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969”, in B. Poter ed., The Aberystwyth papers, International Politics, 1919-1969 , London, 1972, pp. 30-50.
43章前明:《英国学派的方法论立场及其意义》,浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2006年第1期,第81页。
44秦亚青:《国际关系理论的核心问题与中国学派的生成》,《中国社会科学》,2005年第3期,第170-172页。
45房乐宪:《国际关系理论中的国际社会学派:理论及方法论特征》,《世界经济与政治》,2001年,第3期,第18页。
46刘勇为:《近年来国内对英国学派的研究综述》,《黑龙江教育学院学报》,2007年第3期,第14页。
47“探求‘英国学派’及国际社会——巴里·布赞与刘德斌对话”,《中国社会科学报》, 2010年3月12日,网上来源:http://www.qstheory.cn/wz/xues/201003/t20100312_23486.htm
48方长平:《英国学派与主流建构主义的一种比较分析》,《世界经济与政治》,2004年第12期,第36页。
49唐小松、黄忠:《巴里?布赞的国际社会思想评述》,《社会主义研究》,2006年第2期。
50[英]赫德利?布尔著,张小明译:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究》,世界知识出版社,2003年版,第7页。
51[英]赫德利?布尔著,张小明译:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究》,世界知识出版社,2003年版,第10页。
52 Barry Buzan,“From International System to International Society: Structure Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School”, International Organization, Vol.47, Iss.3, Summer 1993, p.336-337.
53 Ole Waever,Barry Buzan,Morten Kelstrup,Pierre Lemaitre(Eds),Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe,London, Palgrave Macmillan (31 Dec 1993), p.351.
54闫健:《巴里·布赞的安全理论解读》,《当代世界与社会主义》2009年04期。
55 Diez, Thomas and Whitman, Richard,“Analysing European integration, reflecting on the English school: Scenarios for an encounter”, In European Union Studies Association (EUSA)< Biennial Conference > 2001(7th), May 31-June 2, 2001, pages 26, Madison, Wisconsin.
56唐小松,黄忠:《巴里?布赞的国际社会思想评述》,《社会主义研究》,2006年第2期。
57刘波,黄昭宇:《英国学派多元主义与社会连带主义论争:一种比较视角》,《国际观察》2009年第1期,第61页。
58 Jacek Czaputowicz, The English School of International Relations and its approach to European Integration, Studies and Analyses, Vol.II No.2 (2003)
59[英]乔?叟:《欧盟法》,法律出版社,2003年第1版。
60《奥格斯堡宗教和约》由神圣罗马帝国皇帝查理五世与德意志新教诸侯签订,确立了“教随国定”原则。“教随国定”主要包含以下两层意思:第一,各邦国统治者在宗教信仰上有选择权。第二,各邦国的臣民则没有选择权,要以君主的信仰为自己的信仰。
61张文显主编:《法理学》,高等教育出版社,北京大学出版社,1999年第一版。
62王铁崖主编:《国际法》,法律出版社,1995年第一版。
63[美]托马斯?R.戴伊著,彭勃译:《理解公共政策》(第10版),华夏出版社,2004年版,第210页。
64徐显明为《国际人权法专论》写的序,参见张爱宁:《国际人权法专论》,法律出版社,2006年版。
65国务院新闻办公室:《2009年美国的人权纪录》,2010年3月12日。
66闫健:《巴里·布赞的安全理论解读》,《当代世界与社会主义》2009年04期。
67叶江:《试析法国遣返罗姆人事件与法国的单一民族国策间之关系》,《西南民族大学学报》2011年4期,第1页。
68[英]赫德利?布尔著,张小明译:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究》(第二版),世界知识出版社,2003年版,第101页。
69《孟子?离娄上》第一章,原句是:“故曰:徒善不足以为政,徒法不能以自行。”
70转引自:[英]赫德利?布尔著,张小明译:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究》(第二版),世界知识出版社,2003年版,第101页。
71高尚涛:《规范的含义与作用分析》,《国际政治研究》2006年第6期。
72本节内容参考了“A short history of the Council of Europe”,http://www.coe.az/Latest-News/4.html,以及马瑞映:《英国与欧共体起点关系模式演变探析》,《陕西师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2005年第6期。
73 The Council of Europe(a brief summary), Council of Europe publishing, 2001.
74 John Coleman, The Conscience of Europe, Council of Europe publishing, 1999, p.13.
75转引自彭沛:《丘吉尔与戴高乐的“欧洲观”之比较》,《经济与社会发展》,2008年第6卷第2期。
79“Statute of the Council of Europe”, London, 5.V.1949, ETS no. 001, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/001.htm
80 Mikeael Rask Madsen,“From Cold War Instrument to Supreme European Court: The European Court of Human Rights at the Crossroads of International and National Law and Politics,”Law &Social Inquiry, Volume 32, Issue 1, (Winter 2007), pp.137-159.
83朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年4月出版,第14-15页。
84廖福特,《欧洲人权公约》,《新世纪智库论坛》第8期(1999.12.30)http://www.taiwanncf.org.tw/ttforum/08/08-03.pdf
85《世界人权宣言》第3条。参见:http://www.un.org/chinese/work/rights/rights.htm
86朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年4月出版,第73页。
87 De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium [VAGRANCY CASES] Application Nos: 2832/66, 2835/66, 2899/66,
88 Council of Europe, Short Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, p.23
89原文为:No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
90[英]克莱尔?奥维、罗宾?怀特著,何志鹏、孙璐译:《欧洲人权法:原则与判例》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2006年版,第594页。
91 Amendments to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty Establishing the European Community, See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0010:0041:EN:PDF
92朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年版,第236页。
95 Pieter Dijk, Godefridus J. H. Hoof, G. J. H. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Publisher: Springer; 1 edition (June 3, 1998) , p.36
96 Mark W. Janis, Richard S. Kay and Anthony W. bradley, European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2 edition (February 15, 2001), p.30.
97莫纪宏等:《人权法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,2008年版,第63页。
98 P. van Dijk and G.J.H. Van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, The Hague, Kluwer International, 2nd edition, 1998 P.36.
99 http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Reports+and+Statistics/
100赵海峰,窦玉前:《保护人权与提高效率的平衡:欧洲人权法院2004年改革评析》,《法律适用》,2006年第1、2期合刊。http://law.hit.edu.cn/article/2006/10-20/10142324.htm
107 Judith L. Goldstein, Miles Kahler, Robert O. Keohane and Anne-Marie Slaughter (eds.): Legalization and World Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001, p.156.
108 Reus-Smit, Christian:“The Politics of International Law.”in Christian Reus-Smith (ed.): The Politics of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.14–44.
109 Keohane, Robert O., Andrew Moravcsik and Anne-Marie Slaughter:“Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational.”International Organization, 2000(54), pp.457–88.
110 Balas, Aron, Rafael La Porta, Andrei Shleifer, and Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes.“The Divergence of Legal Procedures.”2008, See: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1091232.
111 Erik Voeten,“The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights”American Political Science Review, vol. 102, no. 4, (November 2008), pp.417-433,除另有注明之外,此处的数据均来自于该文。
113Robin C.A. WhiteandIris Boussiakou,“Separate opinions in the European Court of Human Rights”Human Rights Law Review vol. 9, no.1,2009, pp.37-60.
114同上。
115公约第35条第1款的规定:“依照公认的国际法准则,只有在案件已经,并且在国内终局决定做出之日6个月期限内提出申诉的,法院方可受理。”
126 Council of Europe: Short Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, 2000, p.12转引自朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年版,第73-74页。
127同上。
128白桂梅编著:《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社,1996年版,第210-213页。
129同上,第213-214页。
130 http://www.equidad.scjn.gob.mx/IMG/pdf/Caso_Marckx_v-_Belgica_Ingles_-2.pdf
131 J. G. Merrills: The development of international law by the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd Ed.,
132“Case of Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece”, http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/orig/95_1/Stran_Greek.pdf
133 Resolution DH9(97) 184
134[英]克莱尔?奥维、罗宾?怀特著,何志鹏、孙璐译:《欧洲人权法:原则与判例》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2006年版,第575页。
135转引自:Ovey, Clare White, Robin C.A. Jacobs and White: The European Convention on Human Rights (4th edition) , Oxford University Press 2006,pp.432.
136“Turkey declines to pay damages to Greek Cypriot woman”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/203362.stm
137 Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)80,“concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 July 1998 in the case of Loizidou against Turkey”, (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 June 2001at the 757th meeting of the Ministers’Deputies.
138“Turkey compensates Cyprus refugee”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3257880.stm
139 Gaskin v UK, judgement from the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, 07 July 1989
144赵海峰,卢建平:《欧洲法通讯》(第五辑),法律出版社,2003年版,第1页。.
145 Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1983, pp. 96-98, 105.
146伊丽莎白?施泰纳:《欧洲人权公约》:人权保护的一个和谐体系,http://www.humanrights.cn/cn/zt/tbbd/bjtl/06/t20091103_507260.htm
147 [英]弗兰西斯?斯奈德:《欧洲联盟法概述》,宋英译,北京大学出版社,1996年版,第75页。
148郑先武:《安全研究:一种‘多元主义’视角——巴瑞·布赞安全研究透析》,《国际政治研究》2006年第4期。
149 Murray Hunt, Using Human Rights Law in English Courts (Hart Publishing, 1997), especially chapters 4-6.
150 R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex. parte Brind [1991], AC 696.
151 John Griffith,“The Political Constitution”, Modern Law Review, 1979, p.1.
152根据欧洲人权法院网站提供的数据整理,参见:http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_EN
153英国枢密院司法委员会(Judicial Committee of the Privy Council)负责审理教会法院、捕获法院以及英联邦某些成员国和殖民地司法机关的上诉案件,也是英国最高司法机构之一,2009年10月1日之后,
158 M. Loughlin, Rights Discourse and Public Law Thought in the United Kingdom in G.W. Anderson (ed), Rights and Democracy: Essays in UK-Canadian Constitutionalism, Vancouver : Black Stone Press, 1999, p.193.
159 R. Masterman:“Aspiration or Foundation? The Status of the Strasbourg Jurisprudence and the‘Convention Rights’”in Domestic Law, in H. Fenwick, R. Masterman and G. Phillipson (eds), Judicial Reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p.57,78,85.
160 Nico Krisch,“The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law,”The Modern Law Review,vol.71, no.2, 2008, p.203.
161 House of Lords, Judgment of 17 June 2004 Rv Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah [2004] UKHL 26; For the initial statements, see Lord Slynn’s speeches in House of Lords, Judgment of 9 May 2001 Alconbury [2001] UKHL 23; Judgment of 16 October 2003 Rv Home Secretary ex parte Amin [2003] UKHL 51.
168“Grand Chamber to examine case about measures taken under United Nations Security Council Resolutions against Al-Qaeda”, http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/en/header/press/links/archived+news/archivesnews_2010.htm
169 BBC News: UK 'to continue deporting failed Iraqi asylum seekers', http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11816974
170《英国拟限制移民人数》,《宁波晚报》,2010年12月6日,第A13版。
171原文为:“The ratification was undertaken to demonstrate faith in the European ideal, rather than to achieve any pressing domestic purpose.”In Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.): A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.107.
172French Constitution of 1958, form: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp,
173根据欧洲人权法院网站提供的数据整理,参见:http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_EN
174 Leslie Friedman Goldstein and Cornel Ban:“The European human-rights regime as a case study in the emergence of global governance”in Alice D. Ba and Matthew J. Hoffmann (ed.), Contending Perspectives on Global Governance, London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2005, p.161.
175 Troper, M.,“Judicial Review in International Law,”San Diego International Law Journey 2003(4), pp.39-56.
176 Steiner, E. (1997) "France," in Gearty, pp.267-307.
177 Alter, Karen J. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe, Oxford University Press , Inc., 2003, p.158.
178 Goldstein, Leslie, & Ban, Cornel. (2003). The Rule of Law and the European Human Rights Regime. UC Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2q59x006
182 French Constitution of 1958, PREAMBLE, from: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp
183 French Constitution of 1958, Article 1, form: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp
188根据欧洲人权法院网站提供的数据整理,参见:http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_EN
189 Gorgulu v. Germany: ECHR, No.74969/01, Judgement of 26 February 2004
190Nico Krisch: The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law, The Modern Law Review. (2008) Vol.71, Iss.2. p.183
191 ECHR and national jurisdiction - The G?rgülüCase, http://www.humboldt-forum-recht.de/druckansicht/druckansicht.php?artikelid=135
192 Christoph Gusy:“How can the role of the European Court of Human Rights be enhanced? Recommendations for Germany Policy Paper”Policy report (D13) prepared for the JURISTRAS project funded by the European Commission, DG Research, Priority 7, Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge Based Society (contract no: FP6-028398).
193 Christian Tomuschat:“The Effects of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights According to the German Constitutional Court”, German Law Journal 2010(11), pp. 513-526, available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1253
194 Niedzwiecki v. Germany, 58453/00, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 25 October 2005, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4406d6cc4.html
195 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.): A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.158.
196 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.): A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.159.
197 Christoph Gusy,“How can the role of the European Court of Human Rights be enhanced? Recommendations for Germany Policy Paper”Policy report (D13) prepared for the JURISTRAS project funded by the European Commission, DG Research, Priority 7, Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge Based Society (contract no: FP6-028398)
198 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.): A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008,, p.155.
199 Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz9(ed.), Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.809.
200《西班牙宪法典》潘灯、单艳芳译,中国政法大学出版社,2006年版,第40页。
201 Goldstein, Leslie, & Ban, Cornel. The Rule of Law and the European Human Rights Regime. UC Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. 2003, Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2q59x006
202 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.), A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.408.
203根据欧洲人权法院网站提供的数据整理,参见:http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_EN
204 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, volume 29 (1986). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, p.135.
205 Leslie Friedman Goldstein and Cornel Ban, The European human-rights regime as a case study in the emergence of global governance, Alice D. Ba and Matthew J. Hoffmann(ed.), Contending Perspectives on Global Governance, London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2005.
206 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.), A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.442.
207 Lopez Ostra v. Spain, Judgment of December 9, 1994, Case No. 41/1993/436/ 515.
208 The case of Moreno Gómez v. Spain :http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2004/Nov/ChamberjudgmentMorenoGomezvSpain161104.htm
209 Nico Krisch,“The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law”,The Modern Law Review. (2008) Vol.71, Iss.2, p.190.
210 STC245/1991 of 16 December 1991;STC36/1991 of 14 February 1991. See: The open architecture of European Human Rights Law, p.189.
211 Nico Krisch,“The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law”,The Modern Law Review. (2008) Vol.71, Iss.2, p.190.
214来自罗马尼亚议会网站http://www.cdep.ro/,原文为英语。
215 Goldstein, Leslie, & Ban, Cornel. (2003). The Rule of Law and the European Human Rights Regime. UC Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2q59x006
217 Leslie Friedman Goldstein and Cornel Ban, The European human-rights regime as a case study in the emergence of global governance, in Alice D. Ba and Matthew J. Hoffmann(ed.), Contending Perspectives on Global Governance, London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2005.
218 Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz(ed.), Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.728.
219 Application no. 42722/02,see: http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/ERT%20case%20summary%20Stoica%20v%20%20Romania%20edit2.pdf
220“欧洲人权法院反人权诉讼主要针对东欧国家”http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5052861,00.html?maca=chi-newsletter_ch_Topstories-2357-html-nl
228安国俊:《英国主权债务危机及启示》,《银行家》2010年第4期,第94页。
229郑若麟:《社会正不压邪,恶性犯罪把法国拖入‘战争’》,上海文汇报,2010年7月23日。
230郑若麟:《萨科齐驱逐令广受抨击,茨冈人引发法国阵痛》,上海文汇报,2010月8月24日。
231中国新闻网:《罗姆人问题法国不服软,欧盟团结将受到不利影响》,2010年9月19日。参见:http://www.china.com.cn/international/txt/2010-09/19/content_20960569.htm
232焦传凯:《后冷战时期欧洲少数民族保护机制的特点及不足》,(《西南民族大学学报》(人文社科版),2011年第4期。
233 Goldstein, Leslie, & Ban, Cornel., The Rule of Law and the European Human Rights Regime. UC Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. 2003, Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2q59x006
234 Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz(ed.): Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.332.
235上述3个案件的出处:Osman case-law: Osman v. United Kingdom(1998)29 EHRR245, modified in Z v. United Kingdom(2001)34EHRR97;In Cooper v. United Kingdom(2003)ECHR28843/99, the Grand Chamber departed from the judgment of a Chamber in Morris v. United Kingdom(2002)ECHR38784/97;In Stafford v. United Kingdom(2002)35 EHRR1121, the Court modified its judgment in Wynne v. United Kingdom(1994)19EHRR333.See SirFrancis G. Jacobs, The Sovereignty of Law: The European Way, Cambridge University Press 2006,pp31-32.
237 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocols Nos.
11 and 14 with Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13.
238焦传凯:《后冷战时期欧洲少数民族保护机制的特点及不足》,(《西南民族大学学报》(人文社科版),2011年第4期。
239[英] C.H.麦基文著,翟小波译:《宪政古今》,贵州人民出版社2004年第2版,第86页。
240[美]斯科特·戈登著,应奇、陈丽微、孟军、李勇译:《控制国家---西方宪政的历史》,江苏人民出版社2001年版,第36页。
241[英]洛克著,瞿菊农、叶启芳译《政府论(下卷)》,商务印书馆1964年版,第82页。
242让·博丹著,李卫海、钱俊文译,《主权论》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第1页。
243让·博丹著,李卫海、钱俊文译,《主权论》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第60页。
244让·雅克·卢梭著,《社会契约论》,商务印书馆1980年版,第35页。
248 Jonathan P. Bach,Between Sovereignty and Integration: German Foreign Policy and National Identity after 1989,St. Martin's Press, New York, 1999, p.199.
249参见伍怡康:《法国轴心与欧洲一体化》,《欧洲》1996年第1期,第39页。
250侯永志,“欧盟区域政策对西班牙整体和区域发展的影响及其启示”,http://218.246.21.198/DRCnet.common.web/docview.aspx?version=Integrated&docid=1693649&leafid=3079
252[法]皮埃尔?热尔贝,丁一凡等译:《欧洲统一的历史与现实》,中国社会科学出版社,1989年版,第288页。
253[英]史密斯著,叶江译:《民族主义:理论、意识形态、历史》,上海人民出版社,2006年版,第131页。
1. Alastair Mowbray, Cases and Materials on The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press 2007.
2. Alter, Karen J. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe, Oxford University Press , Inc., 2003.
3. Antoine Buyse,“The Pilot Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights: Possibilities and Challenges,”The Greek Law Journal, vol. 57, (November 2009).
4. Balas, Aron, Rafael La Porta, Andrei Shleifer, and Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes.“The Divergence of Legal Procedures.”2008, See: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1091232.
5. Barkhuysen, Execution of Strasbourg and Geneva Human Rights Decisions in the National Legal Order, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1999
6. Barry Buzan,“The English School as a Research Program: an overview and a proposal for reconvening”. BISA Conference , Manchester, December 1999.
7. Barry Buzan,“From International System to International Society: Structure Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School”, International Organization, Vol.47, Iss.3, Summer 1993, pp.346-352.
8. Beddard, Human Rights and Europe, Cambridge University press, 1993
9. C. A. Gearty, European Civil Liberties and the European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997.
10. Christian Tomuschat:“The Effects of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights According to the German Constitutional Court”, German Law Journal 2010(11), pp. 513-526.
11. Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C83,Volume 53,(30 March 2010)
12. Diez, Thomas and Whitman, Richard. "Analyzing European integration, reflecting on the English school: Scenarios for an encounter", In European Union Studies Association (EUSA) 2001 (7th), May 31-June 2, 2001, pages 26, Madison, Wisconsin.
13. Donna Gomien, Short Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights (3rd edition) (2005)
14. Erik Voeten,“The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights”American Political Science Review, vol. 102, no. 4, (November 2008), pp.417-433.
15. Gardner, Aspects of Incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into Domestic Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law and the British Institute of Human Rights, London, 1993.
16. Goldstein, Leslie, & Ban, Cornel. (2003). The Rule of Law and the European Human Rights Regime. UC Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program.Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2q59x006.
17. Hedley Bull, "International Theory: The Case for A Classical Approach", World Politics 18/3 (April 1966), pp.361-377。
18. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
19. Hedley Bull,“Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969”, in B. Poter ed., The Aberystwyth papers, International Politics, 1919-1969 , London, 1972, pp. 30-50.
20. Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.): A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008.
21. Jacek Czaputowicz, The English School of International Relations and its approach to European Integration, Studies and Analyses, Vol.II No.2 (2003)
22. J.G. Merrills, Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights, Manchester University Press 2001
23. J.G. Merrills, Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights, Manchester University Press 2001
24. Kenneth W.Abbott, Robert O. Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Duncan Snidal,“The Concept of Legalization.”International Organization, vol. 54, no.3, (Summer 2000): pp.17–35.
25. Keohane, Robert O., Andrew Moravcsik and Anne-Marie Slaughter:“Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational.”International Organization, 2000(54), pp.457–88.
26. Leslie Friedman Goldstein, Cornel Ban:“The European Human Rights Regime As a Case Study in the Emergence of Global Governance,”in Alice D. Ba and Matthew J. Hoffmann (ed.), Contending Perspectives on Global Governance, London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2005.p.160.
27. J. G. Merrills: The development of international law by the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd Ed., Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993.
28. Jonathan P. Bach,Between Sovereignty and Integration: German Foreign Policy and National Identity after 1989,St. Martin's Press, New York, 1999.
29. John Griffith,“The Political Constitution”, Modern Law Review, 1979, p.1.
30. Judith L. Goldstein, Miles Kahler, Robert O. Keohane and Anne-Marie Slaughter (eds.): Legalization and World Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001.
31. John Coleman, The Conscience of Europe, Council of Europe publishing, 1999.
32. Mark W. Janis, Richard S. Kay and Anthony W. bradley, European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2 edition (February 15, 2001).
33. Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, New York, 1992, pp.13-24.
34. Michael R. Hutchinson,“The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights,”International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 48, Issue 3, (July 1999).
35. Mikeael Rask Madsen,“From cold war Instrument to Supreme European Court: The European Courtof Human Rights at the Crossroads of International and National Law and Politics,”Law &Social Inquiry, Volume 32, Issue 1, (Winter 2007), pp.137-159,
36. M. Loughlin, Rights Discourse and Public Law Thought in the United Kingdom in G.W. Anderson (ed), Rights and Democracy: Essays in UK-Canadian Constitutionalism, Vancouver : Black Stone Press, 1999.
37. Mireille Delmas-Marty, The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: international protection versus national restrictions, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992.
38. Nico Krisch,“The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law”,The Modern Law Review. (2008) Vol.71, Iss.2.
39. Ovey, Clare White, Robin C.A. Jacobs and White: The European Convention on Human Rights (4th edition) , Oxford University Press 2006,pp.432.
40. Paul Mahoney,“Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin,”Human Rights Law Journal, vol. 11, no.1-2, 1990.
41. Pieter Dijk, Godefridus J. H. Hoof, G. J. H. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Publisher: Springer; 1 edition (June 3, 1998).
42. Reus-Smit, Christian:“The Politics of International Law.”in Christian Reus-Smith (ed.): The Politics of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.14–44.
43. Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz(ed.), Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.809.
44. Robin C.A. WhiteandIris Boussiakou,“Separate opinions in the European Court of Human Rights”Human Rights Law Review vol. 9, no.1,2009, pp.37-60.
45. Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz,Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001.
46. R. Masterman:“Aspiration or Foundation? The Status of the Strasbourg Jurisprudence and the‘Convention Rights’”in Domestic Law, in H. Fenwick, R. Masterman and G. Phillipson (eds), Judicial Reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
47. Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz(ed.): Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001.
48. SirFrancis G. Jacobs, The Sovereignty of Law: The European Way, Cambridge University Press 2006.
49. Stephen Krasner(eds.), International Regimes, Cornell University Press, 1983.
50. The Council of Europe(a brief summary), Council of Europe publishing, 2001.
51. Troper, M.,“Judicial Review in International Law,”San Diego International Law Journey 2003(4), pp.39-56.
52. Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, volume 29 (1986). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991.
53. Yourow, The margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, 1996
54. Yutaka Arai-Takahashi: The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR, Antwerp: Intersentia Press, 2002.
1.李云龙:《人权与主权的真实关系》,《人民日报》(海外版),2010年10月30日,第4版。
2.胡加祥:《论战后人权的国际保护》,《上海交通大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2005年第5期,第13卷(总45期)。
3.秦亚青:《关于构建中国特色外交理论的若干思考》,《外交评论》,2008年第1期。
4. [法]米海依尔·戴尔玛斯一马蒂:《世界法的三个挑战》,法律出版社,2001年版。
5.莫纪宏等:《人权法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,2008年版,前言
6.石斌:《“英国学派”国际关系理论概观》,《历史教学问题》,2005年第2期。
7.唐小松,黄忠:《英国学派的国际社会观及其对欧洲一体化的解读》,《教学与研究》,2006年第3期。
8.“探求‘英国学派’及国际社会——巴里·布赞与刘德斌对话”,《中国社会科学报》, 2010年3月12日。
9.章前明:《英国学派的方法论立场及其意义》,浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2006年第1期。
10.秦亚青:《国际关系理论的核心问题与中国学派的生成》,《中国社会科学》,2005年第3期。
11.房乐宪:《国际关系理论中的国际社会学派:理论及方法论特征》,《世界经济与政治》,2001年第3期。
12.刘勇为:《近年来国内对英国学派的研究综述》,《黑龙江教育学院学报》,2007年第3期。
13.方长平:《英国学派与主流建构主义的一种比较分析》,《世界经济与政治》,2004年第12期,第36页。
14.唐小松、黄忠:《巴里?布赞的国际社会思想评述》,《社会主义研究》,2006年第2期。
15. [英]赫德利?布尔著,张小明译:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究》,世界知识出版社,2003年版。
16. [英]乔?叟:《欧盟法》,法律出版社,2003年第1版。
17. [美]托马斯?R.戴伊著,彭勃译:《理解公共政策》(第10版),华夏出版社,2004年版。
18.张爱宁:《国际人权法专论》,法律出版社,2006年版。
19.司徒北辰:《从驱逐罗姆人看‘法国之惑’》,《新京报》,2010年09月25,第B05版。
20.高尚涛:《规范的含义与作用分析》,《国际政治研究》2006年第6期。
21.《西班牙宪法典》潘灯、单艳芳译,中国政法大学出版社,2006年版。
22.安国俊:《英国主权债务危机及启示》,《银行家》2010年第4期。
23.焦传凯:《后冷战时期欧洲少数民族保护机制的特点及不足》,《西南民族大学学报》(人文社科版),2011年第4期。
24. [英] C.H.麦基文著,翟小波译:《宪政古今》,贵州人民出版社2004年第2版。
25. [美]斯科特?戈登著,应奇、陈丽微、孟军、李勇译:《控制国家---西方宪政的历史》,江苏人民出版社2001年版。
26. [英]洛克著,瞿菊农、叶启芳译《政府论(下卷)》,商务印书馆1964年版。
27.让?博丹著,李卫海、钱俊文译,《主权论》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
28.让?雅克?卢梭著,《社会契约论》,商务印书馆1980年版。
29.潘琪昌主编:《欧洲国际关系》,经济科学出版社,2000年版。
30.蓬皮杜:《谈话与演说集》,第1卷,巴黎普隆出版社,1975年版。
31.伍怡康:《法国轴心与欧洲一体化》,《欧洲》1996年第1期。
32.邵津:《国际法》,北京大学出版社/高等教育出版社,2000年版。
33. [法]皮埃尔?热尔贝,丁一凡等译:《欧洲统一的历史与现实》,中国社会科学出版社,1989年版。
34.葛勇平等著:《欧洲法析论》,法律出版社,2008年版。
35. [英]史密斯著,叶江译:《民族主义:理论、意识形态、历史》,上海人民出版社,2006年版。
36.刘波,黄昭宇:《英国学派多元主义与社会连带主义论争:一种比较视角》,《国际观察》2009年第1期。
37.马瑞映:《英国与欧共体起点关系模式演变探析》,《陕西师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2005年第6期。
38.彭沛:《丘吉尔与戴高乐的“欧洲观”之比较》,《经济与社会发展》,2008年第6卷第2期。
39.朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年4月出版。
40.廖福特,《欧洲人权公约》,《新世纪智库论坛》第8期。
41. [英]克莱尔?奥维、罗宾?怀特著,何志鹏、孙璐译:《欧洲人权法:原则与判例》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2006年版。
42.赵海峰,窦玉前:《保护人权与提高效率的平衡:欧洲人权法院2004年改革评析》,《法律适用》,2006年第1、2期合刊。
43.白桂梅编著:《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社,1996年版。
44.和静钧:《西班牙要当欧洲先锋?》,《南风窗》,2006年11月1日。
45. [英]戴雪著,雷宾南译:《英宪精义》,中国法制出版社,2001年版。
46.刘文秀等著:《欧洲联盟政策及政策过程研究》,法律出版社,2003年版
47.吴志成著:《治理创新--欧洲治理的历史理论与实践》,天津人民出版社,2003年版
48.严双伍著:《第二次世界大战与战后欧洲一体化起源研究》,武汉大学出版社,2004年版。
49.朱孝远著:《欧洲涅磐:过渡时期欧洲的发展概念》,学林出版社,2002年版。
50.刘雪莲主编:《欧洲一体化与全球政治》,吉林大学出版社,2008年版。
51. [美]海斯著,黄慎之译:《近世欧洲政治社会史》,中国政法大学出版社,2007年版。
52.周鲠生著:《近代欧洲政治史》,武汉大学出版社,2007年版。
53.周鲠生编:《近代欧洲外交史》,武汉大学出版社,2007年版。
54. [比利时]德沃伊斯特,[中国]门镜著,门镜译:《欧洲一体化进程——欧盟的决策与对外关系》,中国人民大学出版社,2007年版。
55.高一涵著:《欧洲政治思想史》,东方出版社,2007年版。
56.吴志成,薛晓源主编:《欧洲研究前沿报告》,华东师范大学出版社,2007年版。
57.张海冰著:《欧洲一体化制度研究》,上海社会科学院出版社,2005年版。
58.张伟著:《国家人权机构研究》,中国政法大学出版社,2010年版。
59.周琪主编:《人权与外交:人权与外交国际研讨会论文集》,时事出版社,2002年版。
60.程卫东主编:《欧盟法律创新》,社会科学文献出版社,2008年版。
61.郭关玉著:《中国-欧盟合作研究》,世界知识出版社,2006年版。
62.李先波等著:《主权、人权、国际组织》,法律出版社,2005年版。
63.叶江:《试析法国遣返罗姆人事件与法国的单一民族国策之间之关系》,《西南民族大学学报》(人文社科版),2011年第4期。
64.《英国拟限制移民人数》,《宁波晚报》,2010年12月6日,第A13版。
65.李步云、孙世彦主编:《人权案例选编》,高等教育出版社,2008年版。
66.何海波:《没有宪法的违宪审查:英国故事》,《中国社会科学》,2005年第2期。
67.叶江,谈谭:《试论国际制度的合法性及其缺陷:以国际安全制度与人权制度为例》,《世界经济与政治》,2006年第12期。
68.杨成铭:《人权保护区域化的尝试:欧洲人权机构的视角》,中国法制出版社,2000年1月版。
69.万鄂湘等:《欧洲人权法院判例评述》,湖北人民出版社,1999年版。
70.傅思明:《欧洲人权公约对英国司法审查制度的影响》,《法学杂志》2001年4期。
71.朱晓青:《欧洲一体化进程中人权法律地位的演变》,《法学研究》2002年05期。
1. Council of Europe(CoE), www.coe.int
2. European Union(EU), http://europa.eu
3. European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), http://www.echr.coe.int
4. Parliamentary Assembly(PA, CoE), http://assembly.coe.int
5. Committee of Ministers(CM, CoE), http://www.coe.int/t/cm
6. Commissioner for Human Rights(CHR), http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner
7[法]米海依尔·戴尔玛斯一马蒂:《世界法的三个挑战》,法律出版社,2001年版,第2页。
8朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年4月出版。
9杨成铭:《人权保护区域化的尝试:欧洲人权机构的视角》,中国法制出版社,2000年1月版。
10莫纪宏等:《人权法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,2008年版。
11万鄂湘等:《欧洲人权法院判例评述》,湖北人民出版社,1999年版。
12李步云,孙世彦:《人权法案例选编》,高等教育出版社,2008年版。
13朱晓青:《欧洲一体化进程中人权法律地位的演变》,《法学研究》2002年05期。
14傅思明:《欧洲人权公约对英国司法审查制度的影响》,《法学杂志》2001年4期。
15莫纪宏等:《人权法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,2008年版,前言。
16该书的中文译名为:欧洲人权法原则与判例。参见:[英] Clare Ovey,Robin White,何志鹏,孙璐译:《欧洲人权法原则与判例》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2006年版。
17 Alastair Mowbray, Cases and Materials on The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press 2007.
18 J.G. Merrills, Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights, Manchester University Press 2001.
19 Beddard, Human Rights and Europe, Cambridge University press, 1993.
20 J.G. Merrills, The Development of International law by the European Court of human Rights, Manchester University Press 1995.
21 Yourow, The margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, 1996
22Robert Blackburn(ed.), Fundamental rights in Europe: the European convention on human rights and its member states,1950-2000, Oxford University Press 2001.
23 Helen Keller(ed.), A Europe of Rights:The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press 2008.
24 Gardner, Aspects of Incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into Domestic Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law and the British Institute of Human Rights, London, 1993.
25 Barkhuysen, Execution of Strasbourg and Geneva Human Rights Decisions in the National Legal Order, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1999
26 C. A. Gearty, European Civil Liberties and the European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997
27Mireille Delmas-Marty, The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: international protection versus national restrictions, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992.
31 Barry Buzan,“The English School as a Research Program: an overview and a proposal for reconvening”. BISA Conference, Manchester, December 1999.
32石斌:《‘英国学派’国际关系理论概观》,《历史教学问题》,2005年第2期,第15页。
33石斌:《‘英国学派’国际关系理论概观》,《历史教学问题》,2005年第2期,第9页。
34唐小松,黄忠:《英国学派的国际社会观及其对欧洲一体化的解读》,《教学与研究》,2006年第3期,第77页。
35“探求‘英国学派’及国际社会——巴里?布赞与刘德斌对话”,《中国社会科学报》, 2010年3月12日。
36 Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984, p.1.
37石斌:《‘英国学派’国际关系理论概观》,《历史教学问题》,2005年第2期,第12页。
38“探求‘英国学派’及国际社会——巴里·布赞与刘德斌对话”,《中国社会科学报》, 2010年3月12日,网上来源:http://www.qstheory.cn/wz/xues/201003/t20100312_23486.htm
39 Barry Buzan,“From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization”, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
40 Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, New York, 1992, pp.13-24.
41详见Hedley Bull, "International Theory: The Case for A Classical Approach", World Politics 18/3 (April 1966), pp.361-377。
42 Hedley Bull,“Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969”, in B. Poter ed., The Aberystwyth papers, International Politics, 1919-1969 , London, 1972, pp. 30-50.
43章前明:《英国学派的方法论立场及其意义》,浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2006年第1期,第81页。
44秦亚青:《国际关系理论的核心问题与中国学派的生成》,《中国社会科学》,2005年第3期,第170-172页。
45房乐宪:《国际关系理论中的国际社会学派:理论及方法论特征》,《世界经济与政治》,2001年,第3期,第18页。
46刘勇为:《近年来国内对英国学派的研究综述》,《黑龙江教育学院学报》,2007年第3期,第14页。
47“探求‘英国学派’及国际社会——巴里·布赞与刘德斌对话”,《中国社会科学报》, 2010年3月12日,网上来源:http://www.qstheory.cn/wz/xues/201003/t20100312_23486.htm
48方长平:《英国学派与主流建构主义的一种比较分析》,《世界经济与政治》,2004年第12期,第36页。
49唐小松、黄忠:《巴里?布赞的国际社会思想评述》,《社会主义研究》,2006年第2期。
50[英]赫德利?布尔著,张小明译:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究》,世界知识出版社,2003年版,第7页。
51[英]赫德利?布尔著,张小明译:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究》,世界知识出版社,2003年版,第10页。
52 Barry Buzan,“From International System to International Society: Structure Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School”, International Organization, Vol.47, Iss.3, Summer 1993, p.336-337.
53 Ole Waever,Barry Buzan,Morten Kelstrup,Pierre Lemaitre(Eds),Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe,London, Palgrave Macmillan (31 Dec 1993), p.351.
54闫健:《巴里·布赞的安全理论解读》,《当代世界与社会主义》2009年04期。
55 Diez, Thomas and Whitman, Richard,“Analysing European integration, reflecting on the English school: Scenarios for an encounter”, In European Union Studies Association (EUSA)< Biennial Conference > 2001(7th), May 31-June 2, 2001, pages 26, Madison, Wisconsin.
56唐小松,黄忠:《巴里?布赞的国际社会思想评述》,《社会主义研究》,2006年第2期。
57刘波,黄昭宇:《英国学派多元主义与社会连带主义论争:一种比较视角》,《国际观察》2009年第1期,第61页。
58 Jacek Czaputowicz, The English School of International Relations and its approach to European Integration, Studies and Analyses, Vol.II No.2 (2003)
59[英]乔?叟:《欧盟法》,法律出版社,2003年第1版。
60《奥格斯堡宗教和约》由神圣罗马帝国皇帝查理五世与德意志新教诸侯签订,确立了“教随国定”原则。“教随国定”主要包含以下两层意思:第一,各邦国统治者在宗教信仰上有选择权。第二,各邦国的臣民则没有选择权,要以君主的信仰为自己的信仰。
61张文显主编:《法理学》,高等教育出版社,北京大学出版社,1999年第一版。
62王铁崖主编:《国际法》,法律出版社,1995年第一版。
63[美]托马斯?R.戴伊著,彭勃译:《理解公共政策》(第10版),华夏出版社,2004年版,第210页。
64徐显明为《国际人权法专论》写的序,参见张爱宁:《国际人权法专论》,法律出版社,2006年版。
65国务院新闻办公室:《2009年美国的人权纪录》,2010年3月12日。
66闫健:《巴里·布赞的安全理论解读》,《当代世界与社会主义》2009年04期。
67叶江:《试析法国遣返罗姆人事件与法国的单一民族国策间之关系》,《西南民族大学学报》2011年4期,第1页。
68[英]赫德利?布尔著,张小明译:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究》(第二版),世界知识出版社,2003年版,第101页。
69《孟子?离娄上》第一章,原句是:“故曰:徒善不足以为政,徒法不能以自行。”
70转引自:[英]赫德利?布尔著,张小明译:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究》(第二版),世界知识出版社,2003年版,第101页。
71高尚涛:《规范的含义与作用分析》,《国际政治研究》2006年第6期。
72本节内容参考了“A short history of the Council of Europe”,http://www.coe.az/Latest-News/4.html,以及马瑞映:《英国与欧共体起点关系模式演变探析》,《陕西师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2005年第6期。
73 The Council of Europe(a brief summary), Council of Europe publishing, 2001.
74 John Coleman, The Conscience of Europe, Council of Europe publishing, 1999, p.13.
75转引自彭沛:《丘吉尔与戴高乐的“欧洲观”之比较》,《经济与社会发展》,2008年第6卷第2期。
79“Statute of the Council of Europe”, London, 5.V.1949, ETS no. 001, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/001.htm
80 Mikeael Rask Madsen,“From Cold War Instrument to Supreme European Court: The European Court of Human Rights at the Crossroads of International and National Law and Politics,”Law &Social Inquiry, Volume 32, Issue 1, (Winter 2007), pp.137-159.
83朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年4月出版,第14-15页。
84廖福特,《欧洲人权公约》,《新世纪智库论坛》第8期(1999.12.30)http://www.taiwanncf.org.tw/ttforum/08/08-03.pdf
85《世界人权宣言》第3条。参见:http://www.un.org/chinese/work/rights/rights.htm
86朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年4月出版,第73页。
87 De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium [VAGRANCY CASES] Application Nos: 2832/66, 2835/66, 2899/66,
88 Council of Europe, Short Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, p.23
89原文为:No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
90[英]克莱尔?奥维、罗宾?怀特著,何志鹏、孙璐译:《欧洲人权法:原则与判例》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2006年版,第594页。
91 Amendments to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty Establishing the European Community, See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0010:0041:EN:PDF
92朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年版,第236页。
95 Pieter Dijk, Godefridus J. H. Hoof, G. J. H. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Publisher: Springer; 1 edition (June 3, 1998) , p.36
96 Mark W. Janis, Richard S. Kay and Anthony W. bradley, European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2 edition (February 15, 2001), p.30.
97莫纪宏等:《人权法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,2008年版,第63页。
98 P. van Dijk and G.J.H. Van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, The Hague, Kluwer International, 2nd edition, 1998 P.36.
99 http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Reports+and+Statistics/
100赵海峰,窦玉前:《保护人权与提高效率的平衡:欧洲人权法院2004年改革评析》,《法律适用》,2006年第1、2期合刊。http://law.hit.edu.cn/article/2006/10-20/10142324.htm
107 Judith L. Goldstein, Miles Kahler, Robert O. Keohane and Anne-Marie Slaughter (eds.): Legalization and World Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001, p.156.
108 Reus-Smit, Christian:“The Politics of International Law.”in Christian Reus-Smith (ed.): The Politics of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.14–44.
109 Keohane, Robert O., Andrew Moravcsik and Anne-Marie Slaughter:“Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational.”International Organization, 2000(54), pp.457–88.
110 Balas, Aron, Rafael La Porta, Andrei Shleifer, and Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes.“The Divergence of Legal Procedures.”2008, See: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1091232.
111 Erik Voeten,“The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights”American Political Science Review, vol. 102, no. 4, (November 2008), pp.417-433,除另有注明之外,此处的数据均来自于该文。
113Robin C.A. WhiteandIris Boussiakou,“Separate opinions in the European Court of Human Rights”Human Rights Law Review vol. 9, no.1,2009, pp.37-60.
114同上。
115公约第35条第1款的规定:“依照公认的国际法准则,只有在案件已经,并且在国内终局决定做出之日6个月期限内提出申诉的,法院方可受理。”
126 Council of Europe: Short Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, 2000, p.12转引自朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年版,第73-74页。
127同上。
128白桂梅编著:《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社,1996年版,第210-213页。
129同上,第213-214页。
130 http://www.equidad.scjn.gob.mx/IMG/pdf/Caso_Marckx_v-_Belgica_Ingles_-2.pdf
131 J. G. Merrills: The development of international law by the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd Ed.,
132“Case of Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece”, http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/orig/95_1/Stran_Greek.pdf
133 Resolution DH9(97) 184
134[英]克莱尔?奥维、罗宾?怀特著,何志鹏、孙璐译:《欧洲人权法:原则与判例》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2006年版,第575页。
135转引自:Ovey, Clare White, Robin C.A. Jacobs and White: The European Convention on Human Rights (4th edition) , Oxford University Press 2006,pp.432.
136“Turkey declines to pay damages to Greek Cypriot woman”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/203362.stm
137 Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)80,“concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 July 1998 in the case of Loizidou against Turkey”, (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 June 2001at the 757th meeting of the Ministers’Deputies.
138“Turkey compensates Cyprus refugee”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3257880.stm
139 Gaskin v UK, judgement from the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, 07 July 1989
144赵海峰,卢建平:《欧洲法通讯》(第五辑),法律出版社,2003年版,第1页。.
145 Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1983, pp. 96-98, 105.
146伊丽莎白?施泰纳:《欧洲人权公约》:人权保护的一个和谐体系,http://www.humanrights.cn/cn/zt/tbbd/bjtl/06/t20091103_507260.htm
147 [英]弗兰西斯?斯奈德:《欧洲联盟法概述》,宋英译,北京大学出版社,1996年版,第75页。
148郑先武:《安全研究:一种‘多元主义’视角——巴瑞·布赞安全研究透析》,《国际政治研究》2006年第4期。
149 Murray Hunt, Using Human Rights Law in English Courts (Hart Publishing, 1997), especially chapters 4-6.
150 R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex. parte Brind [1991], AC 696.
151 John Griffith,“The Political Constitution”, Modern Law Review, 1979, p.1.
152根据欧洲人权法院网站提供的数据整理,参见:http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_EN
153英国枢密院司法委员会(Judicial Committee of the Privy Council)负责审理教会法院、捕获法院以及英联邦某些成员国和殖民地司法机关的上诉案件,也是英国最高司法机构之一,2009年10月1日之后,
158 M. Loughlin, Rights Discourse and Public Law Thought in the United Kingdom in G.W. Anderson (ed), Rights and Democracy: Essays in UK-Canadian Constitutionalism, Vancouver : Black Stone Press, 1999, p.193.
159 R. Masterman:“Aspiration or Foundation? The Status of the Strasbourg Jurisprudence and the‘Convention Rights’”in Domestic Law, in H. Fenwick, R. Masterman and G. Phillipson (eds), Judicial Reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p.57,78,85.
160 Nico Krisch,“The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law,”The Modern Law Review,vol.71, no.2, 2008, p.203.
161 House of Lords, Judgment of 17 June 2004 Rv Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah [2004] UKHL 26; For the initial statements, see Lord Slynn’s speeches in House of Lords, Judgment of 9 May 2001 Alconbury [2001] UKHL 23; Judgment of 16 October 2003 Rv Home Secretary ex parte Amin [2003] UKHL 51.
168“Grand Chamber to examine case about measures taken under United Nations Security Council Resolutions against Al-Qaeda”, http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/en/header/press/links/archived+news/archivesnews_2010.htm
169 BBC News: UK 'to continue deporting failed Iraqi asylum seekers', http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11816974
170《英国拟限制移民人数》,《宁波晚报》,2010年12月6日,第A13版。
171原文为:“The ratification was undertaken to demonstrate faith in the European ideal, rather than to achieve any pressing domestic purpose.”In Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.): A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.107.
172French Constitution of 1958, form: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp,
173根据欧洲人权法院网站提供的数据整理,参见:http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_EN
174 Leslie Friedman Goldstein and Cornel Ban:“The European human-rights regime as a case study in the emergence of global governance”in Alice D. Ba and Matthew J. Hoffmann (ed.), Contending Perspectives on Global Governance, London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2005, p.161.
175 Troper, M.,“Judicial Review in International Law,”San Diego International Law Journey 2003(4), pp.39-56.
176 Steiner, E. (1997) "France," in Gearty, pp.267-307.
177 Alter, Karen J. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe, Oxford University Press , Inc., 2003, p.158.
178 Goldstein, Leslie, & Ban, Cornel. (2003). The Rule of Law and the European Human Rights Regime. UC Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2q59x006
182 French Constitution of 1958, PREAMBLE, from: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp
183 French Constitution of 1958, Article 1, form: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp
188根据欧洲人权法院网站提供的数据整理,参见:http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_EN
189 Gorgulu v. Germany: ECHR, No.74969/01, Judgement of 26 February 2004
190Nico Krisch: The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law, The Modern Law Review. (2008) Vol.71, Iss.2. p.183
191 ECHR and national jurisdiction - The G?rgülüCase, http://www.humboldt-forum-recht.de/druckansicht/druckansicht.php?artikelid=135
192 Christoph Gusy:“How can the role of the European Court of Human Rights be enhanced? Recommendations for Germany Policy Paper”Policy report (D13) prepared for the JURISTRAS project funded by the European Commission, DG Research, Priority 7, Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge Based Society (contract no: FP6-028398).
193 Christian Tomuschat:“The Effects of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights According to the German Constitutional Court”, German Law Journal 2010(11), pp. 513-526, available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1253
194 Niedzwiecki v. Germany, 58453/00, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 25 October 2005, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4406d6cc4.html
195 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.): A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.158.
196 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.): A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.159.
197 Christoph Gusy,“How can the role of the European Court of Human Rights be enhanced? Recommendations for Germany Policy Paper”Policy report (D13) prepared for the JURISTRAS project funded by the European Commission, DG Research, Priority 7, Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge Based Society (contract no: FP6-028398)
198 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.): A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008,, p.155.
199 Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz9(ed.), Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.809.
200《西班牙宪法典》潘灯、单艳芳译,中国政法大学出版社,2006年版,第40页。
201 Goldstein, Leslie, & Ban, Cornel. The Rule of Law and the European Human Rights Regime. UC Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. 2003, Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2q59x006
202 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.), A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.408.
203根据欧洲人权法院网站提供的数据整理,参见:http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_EN
204 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, volume 29 (1986). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, p.135.
205 Leslie Friedman Goldstein and Cornel Ban, The European human-rights regime as a case study in the emergence of global governance, Alice D. Ba and Matthew J. Hoffmann(ed.), Contending Perspectives on Global Governance, London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2005.
206 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.), A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.442.
207 Lopez Ostra v. Spain, Judgment of December 9, 1994, Case No. 41/1993/436/ 515.
208 The case of Moreno Gómez v. Spain :http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2004/Nov/ChamberjudgmentMorenoGomezvSpain161104.htm
209 Nico Krisch,“The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law”,The Modern Law Review. (2008) Vol.71, Iss.2, p.190.
210 STC245/1991 of 16 December 1991;STC36/1991 of 14 February 1991. See: The open architecture of European Human Rights Law, p.189.
211 Nico Krisch,“The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law”,The Modern Law Review. (2008) Vol.71, Iss.2, p.190.
214来自罗马尼亚议会网站http://www.cdep.ro/,原文为英语。
215 Goldstein, Leslie, & Ban, Cornel. (2003). The Rule of Law and the European Human Rights Regime. UC Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2q59x006
217 Leslie Friedman Goldstein and Cornel Ban, The European human-rights regime as a case study in the emergence of global governance, in Alice D. Ba and Matthew J. Hoffmann(ed.), Contending Perspectives on Global Governance, London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2005.
218 Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz(ed.), Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.728.
219 Application no. 42722/02,see: http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/ERT%20case%20summary%20Stoica%20v%20%20Romania%20edit2.pdf
220“欧洲人权法院反人权诉讼主要针对东欧国家”http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5052861,00.html?maca=chi-newsletter_ch_Topstories-2357-html-nl
228安国俊:《英国主权债务危机及启示》,《银行家》2010年第4期,第94页。
229郑若麟:《社会正不压邪,恶性犯罪把法国拖入‘战争’》,上海文汇报,2010年7月23日。
230郑若麟:《萨科齐驱逐令广受抨击,茨冈人引发法国阵痛》,上海文汇报,2010月8月24日。
231中国新闻网:《罗姆人问题法国不服软,欧盟团结将受到不利影响》,2010年9月19日。参见:http://www.china.com.cn/international/txt/2010-09/19/content_20960569.htm
232焦传凯:《后冷战时期欧洲少数民族保护机制的特点及不足》,(《西南民族大学学报》(人文社科版),2011年第4期。
233 Goldstein, Leslie, & Ban, Cornel., The Rule of Law and the European Human Rights Regime. UC Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. 2003, Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2q59x006
234 Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz(ed.): Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.332.
235上述3个案件的出处:Osman case-law: Osman v. United Kingdom(1998)29 EHRR245, modified in Z v. United Kingdom(2001)34EHRR97;In Cooper v. United Kingdom(2003)ECHR28843/99, the Grand Chamber departed from the judgment of a Chamber in Morris v. United Kingdom(2002)ECHR38784/97;In Stafford v. United Kingdom(2002)35 EHRR1121, the Court modified its judgment in Wynne v. United Kingdom(1994)19EHRR333.See SirFrancis G. Jacobs, The Sovereignty of Law: The European Way, Cambridge University Press 2006,pp31-32.
237 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocols Nos.
11 and 14 with Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13.
238焦传凯:《后冷战时期欧洲少数民族保护机制的特点及不足》,(《西南民族大学学报》(人文社科版),2011年第4期。
239[英] C.H.麦基文著,翟小波译:《宪政古今》,贵州人民出版社2004年第2版,第86页。
240[美]斯科特·戈登著,应奇、陈丽微、孟军、李勇译:《控制国家---西方宪政的历史》,江苏人民出版社2001年版,第36页。
241[英]洛克著,瞿菊农、叶启芳译《政府论(下卷)》,商务印书馆1964年版,第82页。
242让·博丹著,李卫海、钱俊文译,《主权论》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第1页。
243让·博丹著,李卫海、钱俊文译,《主权论》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第60页。
244让·雅克·卢梭著,《社会契约论》,商务印书馆1980年版,第35页。
248 Jonathan P. Bach,Between Sovereignty and Integration: German Foreign Policy and National Identity after 1989,St. Martin's Press, New York, 1999, p.199.
249参见伍怡康:《法国轴心与欧洲一体化》,《欧洲》1996年第1期,第39页。
250侯永志,“欧盟区域政策对西班牙整体和区域发展的影响及其启示”,http://218.246.21.198/DRCnet.common.web/docview.aspx?version=Integrated&docid=1693649&leafid=3079
252[法]皮埃尔?热尔贝,丁一凡等译:《欧洲统一的历史与现实》,中国社会科学出版社,1989年版,第288页。
253[英]史密斯著,叶江译:《民族主义:理论、意识形态、历史》,上海人民出版社,2006年版,第131页。
1. Alastair Mowbray, Cases and Materials on The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press 2007.
2. Alter, Karen J. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe, Oxford University Press , Inc., 2003.
3. Antoine Buyse,“The Pilot Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights: Possibilities and Challenges,”The Greek Law Journal, vol. 57, (November 2009).
4. Balas, Aron, Rafael La Porta, Andrei Shleifer, and Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes.“The Divergence of Legal Procedures.”2008, See: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1091232.
5. Barkhuysen, Execution of Strasbourg and Geneva Human Rights Decisions in the National Legal Order, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1999
6. Barry Buzan,“The English School as a Research Program: an overview and a proposal for reconvening”. BISA Conference , Manchester, December 1999.
7. Barry Buzan,“From International System to International Society: Structure Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School”, International Organization, Vol.47, Iss.3, Summer 1993, pp.346-352.
8. Beddard, Human Rights and Europe, Cambridge University press, 1993
9. C. A. Gearty, European Civil Liberties and the European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997.
10. Christian Tomuschat:“The Effects of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights According to the German Constitutional Court”, German Law Journal 2010(11), pp. 513-526.
11. Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C83,Volume 53,(30 March 2010)
12. Diez, Thomas and Whitman, Richard. "Analyzing European integration, reflecting on the English school: Scenarios for an encounter", In European Union Studies Association (EUSA)
13. Donna Gomien, Short Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights (3rd edition) (2005)
14. Erik Voeten,“The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights”American Political Science Review, vol. 102, no. 4, (November 2008), pp.417-433.
15. Gardner, Aspects of Incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into Domestic Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law and the British Institute of Human Rights, London, 1993.
16. Goldstein, Leslie, & Ban, Cornel. (2003). The Rule of Law and the European Human Rights Regime. UC Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program.Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2q59x006.
17. Hedley Bull, "International Theory: The Case for A Classical Approach", World Politics 18/3 (April 1966), pp.361-377。
18. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
19. Hedley Bull,“Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969”, in B. Poter ed., The Aberystwyth papers, International Politics, 1919-1969 , London, 1972, pp. 30-50.
20. Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet(ed.): A Europe of Rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press, 2008.
21. Jacek Czaputowicz, The English School of International Relations and its approach to European Integration, Studies and Analyses, Vol.II No.2 (2003)
22. J.G. Merrills, Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights, Manchester University Press 2001
23. J.G. Merrills, Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights, Manchester University Press 2001
24. Kenneth W.Abbott, Robert O. Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Duncan Snidal,“The Concept of Legalization.”International Organization, vol. 54, no.3, (Summer 2000): pp.17–35.
25. Keohane, Robert O., Andrew Moravcsik and Anne-Marie Slaughter:“Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational.”International Organization, 2000(54), pp.457–88.
26. Leslie Friedman Goldstein, Cornel Ban:“The European Human Rights Regime As a Case Study in the Emergence of Global Governance,”in Alice D. Ba and Matthew J. Hoffmann (ed.), Contending Perspectives on Global Governance, London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2005.p.160.
27. J. G. Merrills: The development of international law by the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd Ed., Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993.
28. Jonathan P. Bach,Between Sovereignty and Integration: German Foreign Policy and National Identity after 1989,St. Martin's Press, New York, 1999.
29. John Griffith,“The Political Constitution”, Modern Law Review, 1979, p.1.
30. Judith L. Goldstein, Miles Kahler, Robert O. Keohane and Anne-Marie Slaughter (eds.): Legalization and World Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001.
31. John Coleman, The Conscience of Europe, Council of Europe publishing, 1999.
32. Mark W. Janis, Richard S. Kay and Anthony W. bradley, European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2 edition (February 15, 2001).
33. Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, New York, 1992, pp.13-24.
34. Michael R. Hutchinson,“The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights,”International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 48, Issue 3, (July 1999).
35. Mikeael Rask Madsen,“From cold war Instrument to Supreme European Court: The European Courtof Human Rights at the Crossroads of International and National Law and Politics,”Law &Social Inquiry, Volume 32, Issue 1, (Winter 2007), pp.137-159,
36. M. Loughlin, Rights Discourse and Public Law Thought in the United Kingdom in G.W. Anderson (ed), Rights and Democracy: Essays in UK-Canadian Constitutionalism, Vancouver : Black Stone Press, 1999.
37. Mireille Delmas-Marty, The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: international protection versus national restrictions, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992.
38. Nico Krisch,“The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law”,The Modern Law Review. (2008) Vol.71, Iss.2.
39. Ovey, Clare White, Robin C.A. Jacobs and White: The European Convention on Human Rights (4th edition) , Oxford University Press 2006,pp.432.
40. Paul Mahoney,“Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin,”Human Rights Law Journal, vol. 11, no.1-2, 1990.
41. Pieter Dijk, Godefridus J. H. Hoof, G. J. H. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Publisher: Springer; 1 edition (June 3, 1998).
42. Reus-Smit, Christian:“The Politics of International Law.”in Christian Reus-Smith (ed.): The Politics of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.14–44.
43. Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz(ed.), Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.809.
44. Robin C.A. WhiteandIris Boussiakou,“Separate opinions in the European Court of Human Rights”Human Rights Law Review vol. 9, no.1,2009, pp.37-60.
45. Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz,Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001.
46. R. Masterman:“Aspiration or Foundation? The Status of the Strasbourg Jurisprudence and the‘Convention Rights’”in Domestic Law, in H. Fenwick, R. Masterman and G. Phillipson (eds), Judicial Reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
47. Robert Blackburn and Jorg Polakiewicz(ed.): Fundamental Rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States,1950-2000, Oxford University Press, 2001.
48. SirFrancis G. Jacobs, The Sovereignty of Law: The European Way, Cambridge University Press 2006.
49. Stephen Krasner(eds.), International Regimes, Cornell University Press, 1983.
50. The Council of Europe(a brief summary), Council of Europe publishing, 2001.
51. Troper, M.,“Judicial Review in International Law,”San Diego International Law Journey 2003(4), pp.39-56.
52. Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, volume 29 (1986). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991.
53. Yourow, The margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, 1996
54. Yutaka Arai-Takahashi: The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR, Antwerp: Intersentia Press, 2002.
1.李云龙:《人权与主权的真实关系》,《人民日报》(海外版),2010年10月30日,第4版。
2.胡加祥:《论战后人权的国际保护》,《上海交通大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2005年第5期,第13卷(总45期)。
3.秦亚青:《关于构建中国特色外交理论的若干思考》,《外交评论》,2008年第1期。
4. [法]米海依尔·戴尔玛斯一马蒂:《世界法的三个挑战》,法律出版社,2001年版。
5.莫纪宏等:《人权法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,2008年版,前言
6.石斌:《“英国学派”国际关系理论概观》,《历史教学问题》,2005年第2期。
7.唐小松,黄忠:《英国学派的国际社会观及其对欧洲一体化的解读》,《教学与研究》,2006年第3期。
8.“探求‘英国学派’及国际社会——巴里·布赞与刘德斌对话”,《中国社会科学报》, 2010年3月12日。
9.章前明:《英国学派的方法论立场及其意义》,浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2006年第1期。
10.秦亚青:《国际关系理论的核心问题与中国学派的生成》,《中国社会科学》,2005年第3期。
11.房乐宪:《国际关系理论中的国际社会学派:理论及方法论特征》,《世界经济与政治》,2001年第3期。
12.刘勇为:《近年来国内对英国学派的研究综述》,《黑龙江教育学院学报》,2007年第3期。
13.方长平:《英国学派与主流建构主义的一种比较分析》,《世界经济与政治》,2004年第12期,第36页。
14.唐小松、黄忠:《巴里?布赞的国际社会思想评述》,《社会主义研究》,2006年第2期。
15. [英]赫德利?布尔著,张小明译:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究》,世界知识出版社,2003年版。
16. [英]乔?叟:《欧盟法》,法律出版社,2003年第1版。
17. [美]托马斯?R.戴伊著,彭勃译:《理解公共政策》(第10版),华夏出版社,2004年版。
18.张爱宁:《国际人权法专论》,法律出版社,2006年版。
19.司徒北辰:《从驱逐罗姆人看‘法国之惑’》,《新京报》,2010年09月25,第B05版。
20.高尚涛:《规范的含义与作用分析》,《国际政治研究》2006年第6期。
21.《西班牙宪法典》潘灯、单艳芳译,中国政法大学出版社,2006年版。
22.安国俊:《英国主权债务危机及启示》,《银行家》2010年第4期。
23.焦传凯:《后冷战时期欧洲少数民族保护机制的特点及不足》,《西南民族大学学报》(人文社科版),2011年第4期。
24. [英] C.H.麦基文著,翟小波译:《宪政古今》,贵州人民出版社2004年第2版。
25. [美]斯科特?戈登著,应奇、陈丽微、孟军、李勇译:《控制国家---西方宪政的历史》,江苏人民出版社2001年版。
26. [英]洛克著,瞿菊农、叶启芳译《政府论(下卷)》,商务印书馆1964年版。
27.让?博丹著,李卫海、钱俊文译,《主权论》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
28.让?雅克?卢梭著,《社会契约论》,商务印书馆1980年版。
29.潘琪昌主编:《欧洲国际关系》,经济科学出版社,2000年版。
30.蓬皮杜:《谈话与演说集》,第1卷,巴黎普隆出版社,1975年版。
31.伍怡康:《法国轴心与欧洲一体化》,《欧洲》1996年第1期。
32.邵津:《国际法》,北京大学出版社/高等教育出版社,2000年版。
33. [法]皮埃尔?热尔贝,丁一凡等译:《欧洲统一的历史与现实》,中国社会科学出版社,1989年版。
34.葛勇平等著:《欧洲法析论》,法律出版社,2008年版。
35. [英]史密斯著,叶江译:《民族主义:理论、意识形态、历史》,上海人民出版社,2006年版。
36.刘波,黄昭宇:《英国学派多元主义与社会连带主义论争:一种比较视角》,《国际观察》2009年第1期。
37.马瑞映:《英国与欧共体起点关系模式演变探析》,《陕西师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2005年第6期。
38.彭沛:《丘吉尔与戴高乐的“欧洲观”之比较》,《经济与社会发展》,2008年第6卷第2期。
39.朱晓青:《欧洲人权法律保护机制研究》,法律出版社,2003年4月出版。
40.廖福特,《欧洲人权公约》,《新世纪智库论坛》第8期。
41. [英]克莱尔?奥维、罗宾?怀特著,何志鹏、孙璐译:《欧洲人权法:原则与判例》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2006年版。
42.赵海峰,窦玉前:《保护人权与提高效率的平衡:欧洲人权法院2004年改革评析》,《法律适用》,2006年第1、2期合刊。
43.白桂梅编著:《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社,1996年版。
44.和静钧:《西班牙要当欧洲先锋?》,《南风窗》,2006年11月1日。
45. [英]戴雪著,雷宾南译:《英宪精义》,中国法制出版社,2001年版。
46.刘文秀等著:《欧洲联盟政策及政策过程研究》,法律出版社,2003年版
47.吴志成著:《治理创新--欧洲治理的历史理论与实践》,天津人民出版社,2003年版
48.严双伍著:《第二次世界大战与战后欧洲一体化起源研究》,武汉大学出版社,2004年版。
49.朱孝远著:《欧洲涅磐:过渡时期欧洲的发展概念》,学林出版社,2002年版。
50.刘雪莲主编:《欧洲一体化与全球政治》,吉林大学出版社,2008年版。
51. [美]海斯著,黄慎之译:《近世欧洲政治社会史》,中国政法大学出版社,2007年版。
52.周鲠生著:《近代欧洲政治史》,武汉大学出版社,2007年版。
53.周鲠生编:《近代欧洲外交史》,武汉大学出版社,2007年版。
54. [比利时]德沃伊斯特,[中国]门镜著,门镜译:《欧洲一体化进程——欧盟的决策与对外关系》,中国人民大学出版社,2007年版。
55.高一涵著:《欧洲政治思想史》,东方出版社,2007年版。
56.吴志成,薛晓源主编:《欧洲研究前沿报告》,华东师范大学出版社,2007年版。
57.张海冰著:《欧洲一体化制度研究》,上海社会科学院出版社,2005年版。
58.张伟著:《国家人权机构研究》,中国政法大学出版社,2010年版。
59.周琪主编:《人权与外交:人权与外交国际研讨会论文集》,时事出版社,2002年版。
60.程卫东主编:《欧盟法律创新》,社会科学文献出版社,2008年版。
61.郭关玉著:《中国-欧盟合作研究》,世界知识出版社,2006年版。
62.李先波等著:《主权、人权、国际组织》,法律出版社,2005年版。
63.叶江:《试析法国遣返罗姆人事件与法国的单一民族国策之间之关系》,《西南民族大学学报》(人文社科版),2011年第4期。
64.《英国拟限制移民人数》,《宁波晚报》,2010年12月6日,第A13版。
65.李步云、孙世彦主编:《人权案例选编》,高等教育出版社,2008年版。
66.何海波:《没有宪法的违宪审查:英国故事》,《中国社会科学》,2005年第2期。
67.叶江,谈谭:《试论国际制度的合法性及其缺陷:以国际安全制度与人权制度为例》,《世界经济与政治》,2006年第12期。
68.杨成铭:《人权保护区域化的尝试:欧洲人权机构的视角》,中国法制出版社,2000年1月版。
69.万鄂湘等:《欧洲人权法院判例评述》,湖北人民出版社,1999年版。
70.傅思明:《欧洲人权公约对英国司法审查制度的影响》,《法学杂志》2001年4期。
71.朱晓青:《欧洲一体化进程中人权法律地位的演变》,《法学研究》2002年05期。
1. Council of Europe(CoE), www.coe.int
2. European Union(EU), http://europa.eu
3. European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), http://www.echr.coe.int
4. Parliamentary Assembly(PA, CoE), http://assembly.coe.int
5. Committee of Ministers(CM, CoE), http://www.coe.int/t/cm
6. Commissioner for Human Rights(CHR), http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner