下载文档原格式
权利法案中英文版The Rights Bill 英文原文：The Rights Bill, officially known as the Bill of Rights, is a crucial piece of legislation in many countries around the world, including the United States. Its purpose is to protect and guarantee certain fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. The Bill of Rights forms an essential part of the constitution and ensures that the government respects and upholds the rights of its citizens.The Rights Bill is a cornerstone of democratic societies and embodies the principles of equality, justice, and liberty. It includes provisions that safeguard citizens' freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms. These rights are considered fundamental and are deemed necessary for the functioning of a free and fair society.One of the most significant aspects of the Rights Bill is its protection of individual rights against government abuse of power. It establishes rules and limitations on governmental actions, preventing encroachments on civil liberties. The Bill ensures that the government cannot unlawfully search or seize property without probable cause, guarantees the right to a fair trial, and prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.Moreover, the Rights Bill grants citizens the right to privacy and protects them from unreasonable searches and surveillance. It underscores the importance of personal autonomy and establishes clear boundaries regarding government intrusion into people's private lives.The Rights Bill also addresses issues of due process and protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property. It ensures that all citizens are entitled to fair and impartial treatment by the legal system. Additionally, it guarantees the right to legal representation, the right to confront accusers, and the right to remain silent during police interrogations.In addition to protecting individual rights, the Rights Bill also includes provisions regarding the rights of minority groups. It prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. This ensures equal treatment and opportunities for all individuals within society.The Rights Bill is not without controversy. Some argue that certain rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights may conflict with the greater good or national security. There are ongoing debates regarding the interpretation and application of these rights in specific situations. Balancing individual freedoms with collective interests remains a challenge for lawmakers and the judiciary.In conclusion, the Rights Bill plays a vital role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of individuals in democratic societies. Its provisions protect citizens from government encroachment, ensure due process, and promote equality. The Bill of Rights symbolizes the commitment to a fair and just society, where every individual is entitled to basic human rights and liberties.。
The United States Bill of Rights. The Ten Original Amendments to the Constitution of the United StatesPassed by Congress September 25, 1789Ratified December 15, 1791“The United States Bill of Rights” is a publication of The Pennsylvania State University’s ElectronicClassic’s Series, Jim Manis, Senior Faculty Editor.The Pennsylvania State University is an equal opportunity University.This publication of “The United States Bill of Rights” is a publication of the Pennsylvania State University. This Portable Document file is furnished free and without any charge of any kind. Any person using this document file, for any purpose, and in any way does so at his or her own risk. Neither the Pennsylvania State University nor Jim Manis, Faculty Editor, nor anyone associated with the Pennsylvania State University assumes any responsibility for the material contained within the document or for the file as an electronic transmission, in any way.“The United States Bill of Rights” the Pennsylvania State University, Jim Manis, Faculty Editor, Hazleton, PA 18201-1291 is a Portable Document File produced as part of an ongoing student publication project to bring classical works of literature, in English, to free and easy access of those wishing to make use of them.Copyright © 1998 The Pennsylvania State UniversityThe Pennsylvania State University is an equal opportunity University.I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the free-dom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe-tition the Government for a redress of griev-ances.II A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quar-tered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shallThe United States Bill of Rights.The Ten Original Amendments to the Constitution of the United States Passed by Congress September 25, 1789Ratified December 15, 1791issue, but upon probble cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describ-ing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same of-fense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compen-sation.VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been com-mitted, which district shall have been previ-ously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining wit-nesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.The Bill of RightsVIII Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and un-usual punishments inflicted.IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States re-spectively, or to the people.The Bill of Rights。
欧洲人权法与国际人权法的适用问题研究近年来，人权保障成为国际社会关注的焦点之一。
在这个全球化时代，国家之间的互动日益紧密，国际人权法的适用问题备受关注。
特别是在欧洲，欧洲人权法在保障个人权利方面发挥着重要的作用。
本文旨在探讨欧洲人权法与国际人权法的适用问题，以及这两者之间的关联。
欧洲人权法是指欧洲人权公约（European Convention on Human Rights，简称ECHR）所确立的法律体系。
欧洲人权公约于1950年由欧洲理事会通过，并于1953年生效。
该公约规定了个人基本权利，包括言论自由、宗教自由、私人生活权利等，并设立了欧洲人权法院（European Court of Human Rights）来处理违反公约规定的投诉案件。
欧洲人权法的适用范围主要涵盖成员国的居民以及在该国辖区内的个人。
然而，在国际人权法的框架下，欧洲人权法的适用不仅仅局限于欧洲境内。
根据普遍管辖原则，欧洲人权法也适用于欧洲国家在其领土以外的行为，如在外交活动、保护本国公民等方面。
这一原则使得欧洲人权法在法律适用上更具广泛性和普适性。
然而，欧洲人权法与国际人权法之间也存在一些不同之处。
首先，欧洲人权法的适用范围相对于国际人权法更为狭窄，只限于欧洲地区。
国际人权法则是全球范围内的法律体系，由联合国制定的各种国际公约和文件组成。
其次，虽然欧洲人权法是国际人权法的一部分，但并不是每个国家都是欧洲人权公约的缔约方。
对于那些未签署或未批准欧洲人权公约的国家，其居民在国际人权法框架下享有的权利可能略有不同。
然而，无论在欧洲还是在其他地区，国际人权法都旨在保护人的基本权利。
欧洲人权法与国际人权法之间的关联在于它们共同强调对人权普遍性的坚持。
人的尊严和基本权利应该无论国籍、种族、宗教等因素如何，都应得到公正和平等对待。
因此，欧洲人权法与国际人权法不仅仅是法律文本，更是体现着全球社会对人权价值的共同认同。
在适用和实施欧洲人权法和国际人权法时，还存在一些挑战和困难。
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS公民权利和政治权利国际公约Preamble 序言The States Parties to the present Covenant, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights andfreedoms, Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant, Agree upon the following articles:本公约缔约各国，考虑到，按照联合国宪章所宣布的原则，对人类家庭所有成员的固有尊严及其平等的和不移的权利的承认，乃是世界自由、正义与和平的基础，确认这些权利是源于人身的固有尊严，确认，按照世界人权宣言，只有在创造了使人人可以享有其公民和政治权利，正如享有其经济、社会、文化权利一样的条件的情况下，才能实现自由人类享有公民及政治自由和免于恐惧和匮乏的自由的理想，考虑到各国根据联合国宪章负有义务促进对人的权利和自由的普遍尊重和遵行，认识到个人对其他个人和对他所属的社会负有义务，应为促进和遵行本公约所承认的权利而努力，兹同意下述各条：PART I 第一部分 Article 1 第一条1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. Byvirtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.一、所有人民都有自决权。
国际人权法人权宣言和国际人权公约人权是各国普遍关注的重要议题，为了保障全球人民的基本权利和尊严，联合国制定并颁布了一系列国际人权法律文件，其中包括《世界人权宣言》（International Declaration of Human Rights）和《国际人权公约》（International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights，简称ICCPR）。
一、国际人权法的背景与重要性国际人权法的产生是对二战期间大规模侵犯人权事件的回应。
通过制定普适性、可操作性强的国际法律标准，国际社会希望通过保障人权，避免类似的惨剧再次发生。
国际人权法的重要性在于它确立了全球范围内的基本人权原则，并为个体和集体提供了平等保护的机制。
二、世界人权宣言的内容与作用世界人权宣言于1948年通过，并成为国际人权法的核心文件之一。
它总共包含了30条人权宣言，涵盖了政治、经济、社会和文化等方面的权利。
宣言的主要内容包括但不仅限于：（1）宣言确认了人人生而自由和享有平等尊严和权利。
（2）宣言规定了人权的普遍适用性，无论种族、性别、宗教、国籍、社会地位等差异都应受到平等对待。
（3）宣言规定了一系列的权利，如言论自由、宗教自由、教育权利、公平审判权等。
世界人权宣言的作用在于为国际人权法奠定了基础，成为全球范围内确立人权的指导原则。
三、国际人权公约的内容与作用国际人权公约（ICCPR）是联合国于1966年通过并实施的人权法律文件。
公约共包含了53条人权条款，重点涵盖了公民、政治权利和基本自由等方面。
公约的主要内容包括但不仅限于：（1）公约规定了个体的基本权利，如言论自由、思想自由、结社自由、选举权等。
（2）公约强调了个体享有的政治权利和自由应受到国家保护和尊重。
（3）公约规定了制约个体权利的合法性和必要性条件。
国际人权公约的作用在于明确了个体的权利和国家的责任，为国际社会构建了更加稳定和公正的人权保障体系。
人权法律法规人权是指每个人都享有的基本自由和尊严。
为了保护和促进人权，各国制定了一系列的人权法律法规。
本文将介绍一些国际、国内人权法律法规的重要内容和作用。
一、国际1. 《世界人权宣言》（Universal Declaration of Human Rights，UDHR）《世界人权宣言》是国际人权法律法规的重要基石，于1948年12月10日由联合国大会通过。
该宣言中确立了普世人权的基本原则，如人人生而自由、享有平等权利、不受歧视、言论、信仰和思想自由等。
它被公认为国际人权保护的核心文件。
2. 国际人权公约国际人权公约是指《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》（International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights）和《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》（International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights）。
这两个公约于1966年通过，旨在确保个人的公民权利和经济、社会、文化权利的保障。
3. 其他国际除了上述两个公约外，还有《消除一切形式种族歧视国际公约》（International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination）、《妇女权利公约》（Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women）等。
这些国际法律法规在保护和促进全球人权方面发挥着重要作用。
二、中国1. 《中华人民共和国宪法》我国宪法是最高法律法规，也是具有人权保护属性的重要文件。
其中第一章明确规定了公民的基本权利和义务，如人人生而自由、享有人格尊严、宗教信仰自由、言论、出版、集会、结社自由等。
2. 《中华人民共和国刑法》刑法是我国重要的法律法规之一，其中确保了人权的保护机制。
The notion of collective human rights and corporate social responsibility: issues and trends ininternational lawJide James-EluyodeSJD (Univ. of Arizona); LLM (John Marshall Law School-Chicago); LLB (Lagos St. U.); BL (NLS); IPLP Fellow, University of Arizona Rogers College of Law. The author is grateful to Mary E. Guss, Staff Attorney at the Indigenous Peoples Law & Policy Program, University of Arizona Rogers College of Law, for reviewing early drafts of this article, and to Prof. James Hopkins for his helpful comments. This article is a revised adaptation of the author’s paper titled “Corporate Social Responsibility and the Collective Human Rights Paradigm: Current Developments in International Law and Beyond,” which was presented at the John Marshall Law School Center for International Law’s CLE Lunch and Learn Conference, held in Chicago-Illinois on March 7, 2012.© 2013 Sweet & Maxwell and its ContributorsSubject: Human rights. Other Related Subject: Company law. International lawKeywords: Corporate social responsibility; Human rights; Indigenous peoples; International law; Multinational companiesLegislation cited: Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 (United Nations) Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples 1989Cases cited: Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua (2003) 10 I.H.R.R. 758 (IACHR)Maya Indigenous Community of the Toledo District v Belize Unreported 2004 (IACHR)Case SU-039/97 Unreported February 3, 1997 (Colombia)*209IntroductionCertain sets of recognised collective human rights of “peoples” have newly emerged in the international arena and have created significant complexities. In view of this development,corporations need to re-evaluate the question of their conduct and the nature of the responsibility they owe with respect to the human rights of groups or communities as collective units. This is so because traditional human rights were individual-based, but as that focus is shifting so must the standards for evaluating corporate conduct within host communities.This article examines some of the challenges that the newly evolved international normative standards regarding collective human rights of peoples, otherwise called “indigenous peoples’ rights”, present for corporations. This article reviews the changing expectation for corporate behaviour, and the implications on corporate operations, of some of the relevant international instruments and guiding frameworks on indigenous rights. These include the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples; ILO Convention 169; the World Bank Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples; OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises; the Akwé: Kon Guidelines; and the UN Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework for Business and Human Rights.This article finds that it has become imperative for corporations to be familiar with the new set of human rights of peoples and that failure to be proactive can be very costly. The article also counsels that owing to the unique nature of indigenous human rights, any compliance model adopted by corporate entities ought to reflect this unique quality, because simply adopting the generic human rights compliance model may prove to be ineffective.Collective human rights—how so?The concept of human rights has generally referred to composition of innate privileges which a person is entitled to enjoy simply because of his/her humanity.1 These rights are based on the principle that every person, irrespective of who he or she is and where he or she is, is the subject of rights and is entitled to all civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.2 The idea of human rights has been recognised globally as the fundamental requirement for upholding human dignity, freedom, peace and justice in all societies.3Although the evolution of human rights can be traced as far back as medieval times,4the modern conception of internationally affirmed human rights arose in the 20th century. Countriesbanded together in the aftermath of brutal wars and atrocities to combat increasing infraction on liberty, freedom, dignity and worth of the human person, resulting in the establishment of the Uni ted Nations (“UN”) in 1945 and later, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) by the UN General Assembly in 1948.5Historically, human rights were believed to have been conceived as rights enjoyed by individuals only.6As Thomas Aquinas puts it, natural law (which has been asserted as a foundational basis for the evolution of human rights),7 confers certain immutable rights upon individuals.8Others have justified their support for the notion of human rights adhering only to individuals by suggesting that most traditional human rights instruments only admit individuals as the principal beneficiaries of*210 rights proclaimed by such instruments.9 They add that the abstract concept of collective human rights too often presents great obstruction to the enjoyment by individuals of their human rights.10However, many, including the UN, have countered this notion by asserting that an insistence that human rights can only be held as individual rights will be, for all practical purpose, at variance with the social realities of human situations.11 They argued that conjoined rights, such as the rights of peoples or the rights of cultural minorities, are valid constituents of human rights.12Moreover, claims suggesting that most primary human rights instruments admit of only individual beneficiaries may be, in fact, erroneous. This is because art.1 of the UN Charter of 1945,13 as well as art.1 common to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) of 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”) of 1966 contain provisions which protect and respect the princi ple of equal rights and right to self-determination of peoples.14 Additionally, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”), a UN treaty monitoring body, once declared that protection of the right of indigenous peoples, as a collective unit, to be free from discrimination, falls under the scope of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965.15The Committee concluded that the Convention will apply to any discriminatory acts perpetrated against peoples.16In light of the above, the UN subsequently affirmed that, owing to the peculiar circumstances of some demographics within society, the disproportionate discrimination they suffered, and in linewith the fundamental human rights principles of universality, equality and non-discrimination, the equal worth and dignity of peoples can only be best assured through the recognition and protection not only of their individual human rights but also of their collective rights as distinct groups.17The socially responsible businessThe need for some form of socially conscious behaviour on the part of businesses is not a completely new idea18; the question of what extent of social interaction and degree of social responsibility that private corporate entities owe their employees, customers and neighbours (the society at large), has been consistently debated since the early 20th century.19 Conceptual elements of what constitutes responsible corporate behaviour have always evolved with times.20Thus, over the years, corporate social responsibility (“CSR”) has mirrored different eras of social awareness, progressively evolving from dealing with employment, labour, environmental, and human rights conscious concepts.21There seems to be no singular and universally applicable definition of CSR. Nevertheless, one may characterise the social responsibility of corporations as their commitments to contribute to sustainable socio-economic development of the local community in which they operate, in ways that are both good for the bottom line of the business and for societal development.22The essence of CSR inc ludes a corporation’s legal and social obligations to the societies in which it operates, coupled with how the corporation accounts to the host community for those obligations.23For instance, Archie Carroll has proposed that the key responsibility of a corporation is to generate profits for the shareholders, and to do so within the legal framework drawn by the host government.24Subsidiary to the economic and legal responsibilities is a corporation’s ethical responsibility to conduct its business in accordance with acceptable standards and avoid detriment to its stakeholders. At the*211end is the corporation’s responsibility to adopt a philanthropic (discretionary) strategy that can be beneficial to the business and then to society.25The assertion that profit is the principal basis of any business enterprise, and that only profitable companies are capable of creating goods/services and ultimately adding value to the society, may still be valid.26Notwithstanding, the condition of our modern society now suggests that long-term profitability, as well as the sustainability of a corporation’s business operations, cannot reasonably be detached from the quality of the social licence conferred by a host community as stakeholder in the socio-economic structure.27In other words, the pursuit of profit and respect for human rights of host communities or good corporate citizenship are not two mutually opposing objectives. As John Kamm stated28 :“While it might not always be the case that trade and businesses are good for human rights, it most certainly is the case that a good human rights environment is always good for business. Businesses are acting in their own self-interest when they actively promote respect for human rights in countries where they operate. 29In the last decade, mechanisms of international human rights institutions have devoted an increasing level of attention to the issue of social responsibilities of businesses, especially in relation to the collective rights of inhabitants living within a host community. For instance, in 2001 the UN Commission on Human Rights (now Human Rights Council) appointed a Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples as part of its Special Procedures.30 The Special Rapporteur in discharging the mandate of the Human Rights Council has committed significant amounts of time to the issue of CSR and collective rights. In 2010, a thematic report outlining the responsibility of corporations with respect to indigenous rights was published.31 In 2011 a more specific report dealt with the corporate responsibility of businesses operating in the extractive sector.32Likewise, in 2005 the UN Secretary-General appointed a Special Representative on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises.33 The mandate of the Special Representative mainly concerns the identification and clarification of standards of corporate responsibility and accountability with regard to general human rights standards. But owing to the currency of the issue, the Special Representative devoted some time as well to expounding on the role of corporations in relation to the human rights of indigenous peoples.34。
