[1]湛中乐黄宇骁.再论学术自由:规范依据、消极权利与积极义务[J].法制与社会发展,2017,(04):89-102.
点击复制

再论学术自由:规范依据、消极权利与积极义务()
分享到:

法制与社会发展[ISSN:1006-6128/CN:22-1243/D]

卷:
期数:
2017年04期
页码:
89-102
栏目:
权利研究
出版日期:
2017-07-10

文章信息/Info

作者:
湛中乐1黄宇骁2
关键词:
学术自由消极权利积极权利基本权利保护义务
Keywords:
Academic Freedom Negative Right Positive Right Duty to Protect Fundamental Rights
摘要:
我国现行《宪法》第47条是学术自由的规范依据,前一句话保障了作为消极权利的学术自由,后一句话是其积极权利性质的表述。学术自由首先是一种消极权利,对“学术”一词进行法学上的解释可以划定它的保护范围。宪法对学术自由给予了立法拘束型保障,但法律可以以基本权利的内外在制约为由对其进行限制。学术自由条款同样赋予了国家积极作为的义务,要求国家扶持学术事业的发展。这种积极权利是一种抽象的法律权利,它对国家提出了最低限度的作为义务要求。国家对学术活动的差别性扶持政策并不构成对学术自由的间接性制约,但会引起平等问题。为解决学术共同体的内部冲突,国家基于基本权利保护义务理论应当采取措施确保学术世界内部结构的合理化。
Abstract:
The Article 47 of Constitution of the People’s Republic of China is the normative basis for academic freedom, the former claim of the Article protects the negative right, and the latter claim is the statement about its nature of positive right. Academic freedom is a kind of positive right first, and the word“academic” shall be explained based on jurisprudence so as to delimit its protection domain. The Constitution has endowed academic freedom with the legislation-restraint protection, but the laws shall restrict it by internal and external constraint of fundamental rights. In turn, academic freedom also give statethe positive duty while requiring state to encourage academic course to develop. This positive right is a kind of abstract legal right, which raises the minimum demands of affirmative duties to state. State’s discriminatory supportive policy will not set up the indirect constraints to academic freedom, but it may cause inequality problems. To resolve the internal conflicts of academic community, the state shall take actions to ensure that the academic world is rationalized inwards based on the theory of duty to protect fundamental rights.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
*湛中乐,北京大学法学院教授、博士生导师;黄宇骁,北京大学法学院博士研究生。
本文主题和整体框架由湛中乐提出和制定,文献收集和论点细化由黄宇骁完成,双方共同执笔撰写并修订文章内容。
更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01