比例分析(报告)

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Pravni Vjesnik Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.25234/pv/22523
Marin Keršić
{"title":"比例分析(报告)","authors":"Marin Keršić","doi":"10.25234/pv/22523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper deals with the antinomies between constitutional principles by analysing balancing as one of the methods to solve the problem. More specifically, the author focuses on the balancing test in the context of proportionality and the question of the “weight” of the right. Firstly, the paper analyses the notions of constitutional principles and antinomies. Next, these notions are contextualised in the legal system of the Republic of Croatia using the example of the conflict between the protection of private and family life, dignity, reputation, and honour (Art. 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia), freedom of thought and expression (Art. 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia). By deploying the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia and the European Court of Human Rights in the mentioned conflict, the paper presents theoretical conclusions regarding balancing and the question of the “weight” of the rights. The paper has two goals: First, point out the problems present in the balancing test related to the idea of the “weight” of the rights; second, present proposals that may lead to a clearer understanding of the notions introduced.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PROBLEM „TEŽINA“ SUKOBLJENIH USTAVNIH NAČELA U ANALIZI PROPORCIONALNOSTI (ODVAGIVANJU)\",\"authors\":\"Marin Keršić\",\"doi\":\"10.25234/pv/22523\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper deals with the antinomies between constitutional principles by analysing balancing as one of the methods to solve the problem. More specifically, the author focuses on the balancing test in the context of proportionality and the question of the “weight” of the right. Firstly, the paper analyses the notions of constitutional principles and antinomies. Next, these notions are contextualised in the legal system of the Republic of Croatia using the example of the conflict between the protection of private and family life, dignity, reputation, and honour (Art. 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia), freedom of thought and expression (Art. 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia). By deploying the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia and the European Court of Human Rights in the mentioned conflict, the paper presents theoretical conclusions regarding balancing and the question of the “weight” of the rights. The paper has two goals: First, point out the problems present in the balancing test related to the idea of the “weight” of the rights; second, present proposals that may lead to a clearer understanding of the notions introduced.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pravni Vjesnik\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pravni Vjesnik\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/22523\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pravni Vjesnik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/22523","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过分析平衡作为解决这一问题的方法之一来探讨宪法原则之间的矛盾。更具体地说,作者侧重于比例性背景下的平衡检验和权利的“权重”问题。本文首先分析了宪法原则和二律背反的概念。接下来,以保护私人和家庭生活、尊严、声誉和荣誉(《克罗地亚共和国宪法》第35条)与思想和言论自由(《克罗地亚共和国宪法》第38条)之间的冲突为例,将这些概念置于克罗地亚共和国法律制度的背景中。通过对克罗地亚共和国宪法法院和欧洲人权法院在上述冲突中的做法进行分析,本文提出了关于平衡和权利“分量”问题的理论结论。本文主要有两个目的:一是指出与权利“权重”概念相关的平衡检验中存在的问题;第二,提出可能有助于更清楚地理解所介绍概念的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
PROBLEM „TEŽINA“ SUKOBLJENIH USTAVNIH NAČELA U ANALIZI PROPORCIONALNOSTI (ODVAGIVANJU)
This paper deals with the antinomies between constitutional principles by analysing balancing as one of the methods to solve the problem. More specifically, the author focuses on the balancing test in the context of proportionality and the question of the “weight” of the right. Firstly, the paper analyses the notions of constitutional principles and antinomies. Next, these notions are contextualised in the legal system of the Republic of Croatia using the example of the conflict between the protection of private and family life, dignity, reputation, and honour (Art. 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia), freedom of thought and expression (Art. 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia). By deploying the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia and the European Court of Human Rights in the mentioned conflict, the paper presents theoretical conclusions regarding balancing and the question of the “weight” of the rights. The paper has two goals: First, point out the problems present in the balancing test related to the idea of the “weight” of the rights; second, present proposals that may lead to a clearer understanding of the notions introduced.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信