期刊文献+

平等是一门科学——就业歧视法律控制的比较研究 被引量:11

Science of Equality——Comparative Study on Legal Control of Employment Discrimination
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 世界上有代表性的几个国家反就业歧视的理论和经验,显示了不同国家在就业平等领域的宪法、立法、行政和司法等诸多方面的努力,其经验和教训足以为解决中国目前普遍存在的形形色色的就业歧视提供有益的借鉴和启示。本文表明,平等不仅是一种崇高的理念,更是一门实实在在的学问。运用在就业领域,各国宪法和立法上的平等原则纠正了职场上五花八门、许许多多的不合理和不公正的歧视。事实上,各国法院所发展出来的鉴别歧视的方法是大同小异的。它们共同构成了一套探测和扫除就业歧视的工具库,帮助我们远离愚昧和偏见,造就一个更为理性、公平和高效的社会。 On the subject of anti-discrimination against employment,theory and experience from some representative countries have indicated their respective persistent efforts in realizing employment equality in such aspects as constitution,legislation and jurisdiction,which offers China a good reference and inspiration to solve various and generally existed employment discrimination problems at present.This essay reveals that besides a lofty concept,equality is also a substantive discipline.Applied in employment,many countries have resorted to the principle of equality in their constitution and legislation to rectify various unreasonable and unjust employment discriminations.Virtually,measures of judging discrimination developed by courts of different countries bear many similarities,which comprise an instrument database for detecting and ruling out employment discrimination so as to help us keep away from ignorance and bias and to establish a more rational,fair and efficient society.
作者 张千帆
出处 《北方法学》 2007年第4期5-18,共14页 Northern Legal Science
关键词 平等原则 反就业歧视 司法审查标准 principle of equality anti-discrimination against employment judicial review criteria
  • 相关文献

参考文献30

  • 1蔡定剑.中国宪法实施的私法化之路[J].中国社会科学,2004(2):56-67. 被引量:137
  • 2Grutter v.Bollinger. U.S.LEXIS4800 . 2003
  • 3Gratz v.Bollinger. U.S.LEXIS4801 . 2003
  • 4Wilson v.Southwest Airlines Co. 517F.Supp.292 . 1981
  • 5Griggs v.Duke Power Co. 401U.S.424 .
  • 6Western Air Lines,Inc.v.Criswell. 472U.S.400 . 1985
  • 7D.P.Kommers.The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. . 1997
  • 8Kommers.The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the FRG. .
  • 9French Republic v.Alfred Stoeckel. Case C-345/89 .
  • 10University of California Regents v.Bakke. 438U.S.265 .

二级参考文献8

  • 1Lewan, supra note 166 at 573.
  • 2Horan, Contemporary Constitutionalism and Legal Regal Relationship between Individuals, p. 251.
  • 3张千帆.《西方宪政体系》(下册)[M].中国政法大学出版社,2001年.第449页.
  • 4王涌.“论宪法与私法的关系”[EB/OL].“宪法文本”网站,.
  • 5PeterEQuint.“德国宪政理论上的言论自由和私法自治”[Z].,..
  • 6李忠 章忱.“司法机关与宪法适用”[A].张庆福主编.《宪政论丛》:第3卷[C].法律出版社,2003年.第525页.
  • 7张庆福.《宪政论丛》(第3卷)[M].,.第521页.
  • 8李忠 章忱.“司法机关与宪法适用”[M].,.第525、522页.

共引文献136

同被引文献82

引证文献11

二级引证文献4

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