期刊文献+

INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, ACADEMIC DEBATES AND LEGAL PRACTICES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW IN CHINA: 2000--2013 被引量:1

INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, ACADEMIC DEBATES AND LEGAL PRACTICES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW IN CHINA: 2000--2013
原文传递
导出
摘要 A special system of constitutional review, namely National People's Congress Review Model (the NPC Review Model) has been established since the 1982 Constitution. However, this system was criticized for its inactivity and has never been actually activated. After 2000, there are lots of efforts try to improve the system of constitutional review of China, the results of the Qi Yuling case (2001) and the Luoyang seed case (2003) demonstrated that the U.S.-style of constitutional review is not and will not be accepted by the political system of China, while the results of the Sun Zhigang case (2003) and the Tang Fuzhen case (2009) proved that the existing NPC Review model cannot work very well if political leaders refuse to reform it. However, the experiences of the New Model of Parliamentary Sovereignty which was developed from Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canberra (the Australian Capital Territory), and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China after 1980s, showed that a third way to protect human rights in a liberal democracy and to coordinate the relationship between legislature and court in a system of constitutional review. I believe the third way provides a good case for China to reform the existing constitutional review system without abandon its cherished tradition of the system of people 's congress. A special system of constitutional review, namely National People's Congress Review Model (the NPC Review Model) has been established since the 1982 Constitution. However, this system was criticized for its inactivity and has never been actually activated. After 2000, there are lots of efforts try to improve the system of constitutional review of China, the results of the Qi Yuling case (2001) and the Luoyang seed case (2003) demonstrated that the U.S.-style of constitutional review is not and will not be accepted by the political system of China, while the results of the Sun Zhigang case (2003) and the Tang Fuzhen case (2009) proved that the existing NPC Review model cannot work very well if political leaders refuse to reform it. However, the experiences of the New Model of Parliamentary Sovereignty which was developed from Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canberra (the Australian Capital Territory), and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China after 1980s, showed that a third way to protect human rights in a liberal democracy and to coordinate the relationship between legislature and court in a system of constitutional review. I believe the third way provides a good case for China to reform the existing constitutional review system without abandon its cherished tradition of the system of people 's congress.
作者 程雪阳
机构地区 Soochow University
出处 《Frontiers of Law in China-Selected Publications from Chinese Universities》 2014年第4期636-656,共21页 中国高等学校学术文摘·法学(英文版)
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献42

  • 1肖蔚云.宪法是审判工作的根本法律依据[J].法学杂志,2002,23(3):3-4. 被引量:35
  • 2中国司法部有关文件;《法制日报》有关报道. 被引量:16
  • 3陈端洪.“论中国宪法的根本原则及其格式化修辞”.载《宪治与主权》,法律出版社,2007年版,页147-163. 被引量:2
  • 4《共同纲领》.1949年. 被引量:1
  • 5Black's Law Dictionary, West Group, St Paul,Min. , 1999, p. 683. 被引量:1
  • 6Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986, pp. 914 - 917. 被引量:1
  • 7[美]爱德华·S·考文.《美国宪法的高级法背景》.强世功译.三联书店,1996年版,第一节. 被引量:1
  • 8[美]爱德华·S·考文.《美国宪法的高级法背景》.强世功译.三联书店,1996年版,第二节. 被引量:1
  • 9毛泽东.“关于中华人民共和国宪法草案”.载《毛泽东选集》第五卷,人民出版社,1977年版,页129. 被引量:2
  • 10Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986, pp. 829 - 830. 被引量:1

同被引文献1

引证文献1

二级引证文献28

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部