哈维尔关于主权与人权的演讲

第一篇：哈维尔关于主权与人权的演讲

人权高于国家主权——哈维尔

发信站: 小百合BBS(Sun Oct 30 23:33:26 2005)

1999年4月29日 在加拿大国会的演说

尊敬的总理、参议长、众议长、参议员、众议员，各位来宾：

能在这里演说，我的确感到非常荣幸。我愿借此机会就国家及其可能在未来的地位说 一些看法。

所有迹象表明，作为每个民族共同体的发展顶峰与人类的最高价值----事实上这是可 以为其杀人或值得为它而死的唯一价值----的民族国家，已经越过了其最高顶点而开始走 下坡路。

若干代追求民主人士所从事的启蒙事业，两次世界大战的可怕经历，对於制订世界人 权宣言以及人类文明的全面发展，作出了非常重要的贡献，似乎正逐渐使人类认识到，人 比某一国家更为重要。

在当今世界，国家主权的偶像一定会逐渐消解。当今这个世界透过在商业、金融、财 产，直到信息方面的数以百万计的整合性联系，将各国人民联为一体；这种联系还提供了 各种普遍观念和文化模式。而且，在当今的世界，对一些人的危险会立即影响到其他所有 人；由於许多原因，特别是由於科学技术的巨大进展，我们各自的命运已融合为一种单一 的命运；无论我们喜欢与否，我们都要对发生的一切承担责任。

显然，在这样一个世界里，盲目热爱自己的国家，把爱国置於至高无上地位，仅仅因 为它是自己国家而为它的任何行动寻找借口，仅仅是因为不是自己国家而反对其他国家的 任何行动，这种爱国必然变成一种危险的时代颠倒，一种产生冲突的温床，最终会成为无 数人类苦难的源泉。

我认为，在下一个世纪，大多数国家将开始从那种类似邪教团体的、诉诸情感的实体，转变为更为简单的、公民享有更多管理权力的单位。这种单位将拥有较小的权力，但它 更富於理性，它仅仅是一个复杂的、多层次的、社会自我管理的全球组织的层次之一。这 种转变，要求我们逐渐抛弃那种互不干预的观念，即那种认为其他国家发生的事，其他国 家对人权尊重与否，与己无关的观念。

谁来承担现在由国家行使的多种功能呢？

首先来看国家在诉诸情感方面的功能。我认为，这些功能将被更平等地分配给组成人 类同一性的多层次的领域，即人类活动於其中的多层次领域，也就是我们看作自己家园或 自然界的各种领域，家庭、公司、村庄、城镇、地区、专业、教会、协会，以及我们所在 的大陆和我们居住的行星----地球。所有这些组成我们的自我认同的多种环境。而且，迄 今已膨胀过度的我们与自己国家间的连系如果受到削弱，这必定有利於其他领域。

至於国家的实际职责与法律制度，可以向上和向下转移。向下转移是指国家应该把其 现行的许多职权，逐步转移给公民社会的各种组织和机构。向上转移是指国家把其许多职 权，转移给各种地区性的、跨国的和全球性的团体和组织。这种职权转移现已开始进行。在某些地区，这种转移已走得相当远；在另一些地区则进展较小。

然而，由於许多原因，这种发展趋势必须沿著这条道路继续发展下去。如果界定现代 民主国家的特徵，通常包括尊重人权和自由、公民平等、法治和公民社会，那麽作为人类 未来目标的这种生存方式，或者人类为自己的生存而应该朝著它前进的生存方式，也许可 以被界定为一种以世界性或全球性的尊重人权、世界性的公民平等、世界性的法治和全球 性的公民社会为基础的生存方式。

民族国家建立过程中伴随的一个重要问题是国家的地理边界，即其疆界的确定。无数 的因素，包括种族的、历史的、文化的因素，地理因素，权力利益，以及整个文明状态，都在其中起著重要作用。

建立地区性或跨国性的更大共同体，有时会遇到同样的问题。在某种程度上，这种问 题可能从加入共同体的民族国家那里继承而来。我们应该用一切力量来保护这一自我界定 的过程不会像民族国家的建立过程那麽痛苦。

例如，加拿大和捷克现在是同一防御性组织--北大西洋公约组织的成员。这是一个具 有历史重要意义的发展过程，即北约扩展到中欧和东欧国家的结果。这一过程的重要性在 於，它是为了打破铁幕、在真实上而不仅在口头上废除雅尔塔协议，所迈出的真正严肃的、历史上不可逆转的第一步。

众所周知，这一扩展过程远非容易，而且是在两极对立的世界结束十年後才成为现实。进展如此困难的原因之一，是由於俄罗斯联邦的反对。他们对此不理解而且十分担心： 为何西方要向俄罗斯附近国家扩展，而不接纳俄罗斯？如果我在此刻撇开所有其他动机，俄罗斯的这种态度暴露了一个非常有趣的问题，即俄罗斯世界或东方世界对自己的地理疆 界不清楚。北约与俄罗斯结成夥伴的前提条件是：地球上存在著两个对等的强大实体，即 欧洲-大西洋实体和广袤的欧洲-亚洲实体。这两个实体可以而且必须相互携手合作，这对 全世界有利。但之所以能这样做是因为双方都意识到自己的身份，都知道自己的范围在何 处。在这个问题上，俄罗斯在其历史发展过程中就遇到某些困难，并把这些困难带到现今 世界，而在现今世界，地理边界不再涉及民族国家，而是涉及文化和文明的地区和区域。的确，俄罗斯有许多与欧洲--大西洋或西方相联系的东西，但如同拉丁美洲、非洲、远东、其他地区或大陆，俄罗斯也有许多与西方不同的东西。世界的各地区存在著差别，这一 事实并不意味著有些地区比另一些地区更有价值。它们是互相平等的。它们仅仅在某些方 面有所不同。但不相同□不意味著可耻。俄罗斯在一方面认为自己是一个实体，是一个应 该受到特殊对待的全球强国；另一方面，它又因为自己被看成是一个独立实体，一个很难 成为另一实体之组成部分的实体，而感到不舒服。

俄罗斯正在逐渐习惯北约的扩展，有一天它会完全习惯这种扩展。我们希望，这将不 仅是恩格斯所谓的被认识到的必然性的一种表现，而且是新的更深刻的自我理解的一种表 现。在这个多元文化、多极化的新环境里，正如其他国家必须学会重新界定自己，俄罗斯 也必须这样作。这不仅意味著，它不能永远以自大狂或自恋来代替自然的自信心，而且意 味著它必须认识到何处是自己的疆界。例如，拥有丰富自然资源的广袤无边的西伯利亚，属於俄罗斯；而小小的爱沙尼亚就不属於并永远不属於俄罗斯。而且，如果爱沙尼亚属於 北约或欧盟所代表的世界，俄罗斯必须理解和尊重这一点，而不应把这看成是一种敌意的 表现。

只要人类能经受人类为自己准备备的所有危险的考验，二十一世纪的世界将是一个以平等为基础的，人类在范围更大的、有时甚至覆盖整个大陆的跨国组织内更密切合作的世 界。为了使这个世界变成现实，人类文明的各种实体、文化或领域必须清晰地认识到自己 的身份，了解自己与别人的差异所在，认识到这种差异性不是一种障碍，而是对人类全球 财富的一种贡献。当然，那些对自己的差异性抱优越感的人也必须认识到这一点。

联合国是所有国家和跨国实体能坐在一起平等讨论、并做出决定影响整个世界的最重 要组织之一。联合国如果要成功地完成廿一世纪赋予它的任务，必须做重大改革。

联合国的最重要机构安理会，不能继续维持它刚开始成立时的状况。相反，它必须公 正合理地反映今日的多极化世界。我们必须思考，某一个国家是否一定有权否决其他各国 的共同决定。我们必须考虑，许多重要而强大的国家在安理会内没有代表权这个问题。我 们必须探索轮流性的安理会非常任理事国等制度问题。我们还必须减少整个联合国庞大机 构的官僚主义，提高其工作效率。我们必须讨论如何才能使联合国机构，特别是其全体大 会的决策过程具有真正的弹性。

最重要的是，我们必须使地球上所有居民确实将联合国看成是自己的组织，而不只是 一个由各国政府组成的俱乐部。最关键一点是，联合国应该是为地球上全体人类而不是为 了个别国家谋利益。因而，联合国的财务程序，会员国申请程序和审批程序，也许应该加 以改革。这并不是要剥夺国家的权力并以某种庞大的全球之国取而代之，而是不能让一切 事务都一定要而且只能通过国家及其政府来处理。正是为了人类的利益，为了人权、自由 以及一般意义上的生命的利益，应该存在多种渠道，使世界领袖的决策到达公民，并使公 民达到世界领袖。多种渠道意味著更多的平衡和更广阔的相互监督。

显然，我不是在反对国家机构。一国的首脑在另一国的国会演讲时宣传国家应该废除，这是相当荒谬的。但我讲的是其他问题。我讲的是，事实上存在著一种高於国家的价值。这种价值就是人。众所周知，国家要为人民服务的而不是与此相反。公民服务於自己国 家的唯一理由，是因为对於国家为所有公民提供良好服务而言，公民的服务非常必要。人 权高於国家权利。人类自由是一种高於国家主权的价值。就国际法体系而言，保护单个人 的国际法律优先於保护国家的国际法律。

在当今世界，如果我们各自的命运已融合成单一的一种命运，如果任何人都应对全人 类的未来负责，那麽，任何人，任何国家，都不应拥有限制人民履行自己职责的权利。各 国的外交政策应该逐渐脱离那种常见的构成其核心的东西，即自己国家的利益，自己国家 外交政策的利益，因为这类利益倾向於分裂而不是团结人类。确实，人人都有某种利益，这是完全自然的，没有理由认为我们应该抛弃自己的合法权利。但有一种东西高於我们的 利益，这就是我们信奉的原则。这些原则能团结我们而不是分裂我们。而且，这些原则是 衡量我们的利益是否具有合法性的标尺。许多国家的教义是，为了国家的利益而坚持某原 则，这种说法站不住脚。原则必须为了其自身而被尊重或坚持。就原则而言，利益应该来 源於原则。例如，如果我说，为了捷克的利益才需要有公平合理的世界和平，这是不对的。我应该说，必须有公平合理的世界和平，而捷克的利益必须服从於它。

北约正在进行一场反对米洛谢维奇的种族灭绝统治的战争。这既非一场可以轻易获胜 的战争，也非一场人人拥护的战争。对於北约的战略战术，人们可能存在著不同观点。但 任何具有正常判断力的人都不能否认一点：这可能是人类并非为了利益、而是为了坚持某 种原则和价值所进行的第一场战争。如果可以这样评价战争的话，那麽这确实是一场合乎 道德的战争，一场为了道德原因而打的战争。科索伏没有可以使某些人感兴趣的油田，任 何北约成员国对科索伏没有任何领土要求，米洛谢维奇也没有威胁任何北约成员国或其他 国家的领土主权。尽管如此，北约却在打仗，正在打一场代表人类利益、为了拯救他人命 运的战争，因为正派的人不能对国家领导下的系统性地屠杀他人坐视不管。正直的人绝不 能容忍这种事，而且，绝不能在能够救援的情况下而不施援手。

这场战争将人权置於优先於国家权利的地位。北约对南斯拉夫的攻击没有获得联合国 的直接授权。但北约的行动并非出於肆无忌惮、侵略性或不尊重国际法。恰恰相反，北约 的行动是出於对国际法的尊重，出於对其地位高於保护国家主权的国际法的尊重，出於对 人权的尊重，因为人权是我们的良心及其他国际法律所明确阐明的。

我认为，这场战争为未来立下了一个重要的先例，它已明确宣告，不允许屠杀人民，不允许将人民驱离家园，不允许虐待人民，不允许剥夺人民的财产。它还表明，人权不可 分割，对一些人不公正也就是对所有人的不公正。……

过去我曾经多次思索，为何人拥有的某种权利高於其他任何权利。我得到的结论是，人权、人的自由和人的尊严深深地置根於地球世界之外。它之所以得到这种地位是因为在 某些环境下，人类自觉地而不是被迫地把它看成是一种重於自己生命的价值。因而，这些 观念只有以无限空间和永恒时间为背景才有意义。我坚信，我们的所有行动，无论它们是 否与我们的良心相和谐，其真实价值最终将在某个超出我们视线的地方接受检验。如果我 们感觉不到这一点，或者下意识地怀疑这一点，我们将一事无成。

对於国家及其在未来可能扮演的角色，我的结论是：国家是人的产物，而人是上帝的 产物。

第二篇：哈维尔1990年新年演讲

My dear fellow citizens，For forty years you heard from my predecessors on this day different variations on the same theme: how our country was flourishing, how many million tons of steel we produced, how happy we all were, how we trusted our government, and what bright perspectives were unfolding in front of us.I assume you did not propose me for this office so that I, too, would lie to you.Our country is not flourishing.The enormous creative and spiritual potential of our nations is not being used sensibly.Entire branches of industry are producing goods that are of no interest to anyone, while we are lacking the things we need.A state which calls itself a workers' state humiliates and exploits workers.Our obsolete economy is wasting the little energy we have available.A country that once could be proud of the educational level of its citizens spends so little on education that it ranks today as seventy-second in the world.We have polluted the soil, rivers and forests bequeathed to us by our ancestors, and we have today the most contaminated environment in Europe.Adults in our country die earlier than in most other European countries.Allow me a small personal observation.When I flew recently to Bratislava, I found some time during discussions to look out of the plane window.I saw the industrial complex of Slovnaft chemical factory and the giant Petr'alka housing estate right behind it.The view was enough for me to understand that for decades our statesmen and political leaders did not look or did not want to look out of the windows of their planes.No study of statistics available to me would enable me to understand faster and better the situation in which we find ourselves.But all this is still not the main problem.The worst thing is that we live in a contaminated moral environment.We fell morally ill because we became used to saying something different from what we thought.We learned not to believe in anything, to ignore one another, to care only about ourselves.Concepts such as love, friendship, compassion, humility or forgiveness lost their depth and dimension, and for many of us they represented only psychological peculiarities, or they resembled gone-astray greetings from ancient times, a little ridiculous in the era of computers and spaceships.Only a few of us were able to cry out loudly that the powers that be should not be all-powerful and that the special farms, which produced ecologically pure and top-quality food just for them, should send their produce to schools, children's homes and hospitals if our agriculture was unable to offer them to all.The previous regimereduced man to a force of production, and nature to a tool of production.In this it attacked both their very substance and their mutual relationship.It reduced gifted and autonomous people, skillfully working in their own country, to the nuts and bolts of some monstrously huge, noisy and stinking machine, whose real meaning was not clear to anyone.It could not do more than slowly but inexorably wear out itself and all its nuts and bolts.When I talk about the contaminated moral atmosphere, I am not talking just about the gentlemen who eat organic vegetables and do not look out of the plane windows.I am talking about all of us.We had all become used to the totalitarian system and accepted it as an unchangeable fact and thus helped to perpetuate it.In other words, we are allresponsible for the operation of the totalitarian machinery.None of us is just its victim.We are all also its co-creators.Why do I say this? It would be very unreasonable to understand the sad legacy of the last forty years as something alien, which some distant relative bequeathed to us.On the contrary.We have to accept this legacy as a sin we committed against ourselves.If we accept it as such we will understand that it is up to us all and up to us alone to do something about it.We cannot blame the previous rulers for everything, not only because it would be untrue, but also because it would blunt the duty that each of us faces today: namely, the obligation to act independently, freely, reasonably and quickly.Let us not be mistaken: the best government in the world, the best parliament and the best president, cannot achieve much on their own.And it would be wrong to expect a general remedy from them alone.Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all.If we realize this, then all the horrors that the new Czechoslovak democracy inherited will cease to appear so terrible.If we realize this, hope will return to our hearts.In the effort to rectify matters of common concern, we have something to lean on.The recent periodhas shown the enormous human, moral and spiritual potential, and the civic culture that slumbered in our society under the enforced mask of apathy.Whenever someone categorically claimed that we were this or that, I always objected that society is a very mysterious creature and that it is unwise to trust only the face it presents to you.I am happy that I was not mistaken.Everywhere in the world people wonder where those meek, humiliated, skeptical and seemingly cynical citizens of Czechoslovakia found the marvelous strength to shake the totalitarian yoke from their shoulders in several weeks, and in a decent and peaceful way.And let us ask: Where did the young people who never knew another system get their desire for truth, their love of free thought, their political ideas, their civic courage and civic prudence? How did it happen that their parents--the very generation that had been considered lost--joined them? How is it that so many people immediately knew what to do and none needed any advice or instruction?

I think there are two main reasons for the hopeful face of our present situation.First of all, people are never just a product of the external world;they are also able to relate themselves to something superior, however systematically the external world tries to kill that ability in them.Secondly, the humanistic and democratic traditions, about which there had been so much idle talk, did after all slumber in the unconsciousness of our nations and ethnic minorities, and were inconspicuously passed from one generation to another, so that each of us could discover them at the right time and transform them into deeds.We had to pay, however, for our present freedom.Many citizens perished in jails in the 1950s, many were executed, thousands of human lives were destroyed, hundreds of thousands of talented people were forced to leave the country.Those who defended the honor of our nations during the Second World War, those who rebelled against totalitarian rule and those who simply managed to remain themselves and think freely, were all persecuted.We should not forget any of those who paid for our present freedom in one way or another.Independent courts should impartially consider the possible guilt of those who were responsible for the persecutions, so that the truth about our recent past might be fully revealed.We must also bear in mind that other nations have paid even more dearly for their present freedom, and that indirectly they have also paid for ours.The rivers of blood that have flowed in Hungary, Poland, Germany and recently in such a horrific manner in Romania, as well as the sea of blood shed by the nations of the Soviet Union, must not be forgotten.First of all because all human suffering concerns every other human being.But more than this, they must also not be forgotten because it is these great sacrifices that form the tragic background of today's freedom or the gradual emancipation of the nations of the Soviet Bloc, and thus the background of our own newfound freedom.Without the changes in the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, and the German Democratic Republic, what has happened in our country would have scarcely happened.And if it did, it certainly would not have followed such a peaceful course.The fact that we enjoyed optimal international conditions does not mean that anyone else has directly helped us during the recent weeks.In fact, after hundreds of years, both our nations have raised their heads high of their own initiative without relying on the help of stronger nations or powers.It seems to me that this constitutes the great moral asset of the present moment.This moment holds within itself the hope that in the future we will no longer suffer from the complex of those who must always express their gratitude to somebody.It now depends only on us whether this hope will be realized and whether our civic, national, and political self-confidence will be awakened in a historically new way.Self-confidence is not pride.Just the contrary: only a person or a nation that is self-confident, in the best sense of the word, is capable of listening to others, accepting them as equals, forgiving its enemies and regretting its own guilt.Let us try to introduce this kind of self-confidence into the life of our community and, as nations, into our behavior on the international stage.Only thus can we restore our self-respect and our respect for one another as well as the respect of other nations.Our state should never again be an appendage or a poor relative of anyone else.It is true that we must accept and learn many things from others, but we must do this in the future as their equal partners, who also have something to offer.Our first president wrote: “Jesus, not Caesar.” In this he followed our philosophers Chel'ick and Komensk.I dare to say that we may even have an opportunity to spread this idea further and introduce a new element into European and global politics.Our country, if that is what we want, can now permanently radiate love, understanding, the power of the spirit and of ideas.It is precisely this glow that we can offer as our specific contribution to international politics.Masaryk [Tom Masaryk, first president of Czechoslovakia] based his politics on morality.Let us try, in a new time and in a new way, to restore this concept of politics.Let us teach ourselves and others that politics should be an expression of a desire to contribute to the happiness of the community rather than of a need to cheat or rape the community.Let us teach ourselves and others that politics can be not simply the art of the possible, especially if this means the art of speculation, calculation, intrigue, secret deals and pragmatic maneuvering, but that it can also be the art of the impossible, that is, the art of improving ourselves and the world.We are a small country, yet at one time we were the spiritual crossroads of Europe.Is there a reason why we could not again become one? Would it not be another asset with which to repay the help of others that we are going to need?

Our homegrown Mafia, those who do not look out of the plane windows and who eat specially fed pigs, may still be around and at times may muddy the waters, but they are no longer our main enemy.Even less so is our main enemy any kind of international Mafia.Our main enemy today is our own bad traits: indifference to the common good, vanity, personal ambition, selfishness, and rivalry.The main struggle will have to be fought on this field.There are free elections and an election campaign ahead of us.Let us not allow this struggle to dirty the so-far clean face of our gentle revolution.Let us not allow the sympathies of the world, which we have won so fast, to be equally rapidly lost through our becoming entangled in the jungle of skirmishes for power.Let us not allow the desire to serve oneself to bloom once again under the stately garb of the desire to serve the common good.It is not really important now which party, club or group prevails in the elections.The important thing is that the winners will be the best of us, in the moral, civic, political and professional sense, regardless of their political affiliations.The future policies and prestige of our state will depend on the personalities we select, and later, elect to our representative bodies.My dear fellow citizens!

Three days ago I became the president of the republic as a consequence of your will, expressed through the deputies of the Federal Assembly.You have a right to expect me to mention the tasks I see before me as president.The first of these is to use all my power and influence to ensure that we soon step up to the ballot boxes in a free election, and that our path toward this historic milestone will be dignified and peaceful.My second task is to guarantee that we approach these elections as two self-governing nations who respect each other's interests, national identity, religious traditions, and symbols.As a Czech who has given his presidential oath to an important Slovak who is personally close to him, I feel a special obligation--after the bitter experiences that Slovaks had in the past--to see that all the interests of the Slovak nation are respected and that no state office, including the highest one, will ever be barred to it in the future.My third task is to support everything that will lead to better circumstances for our children, the elderly, women, the sick, the hardworking laborers, the national minorities and all citizens who are for any reason worse off than others.High-quality food or hospitals must no longer be a prerogative of the powerful;they must be available to those who need them the most.As supreme commander of the armed forces I want to guarantee that the defensive capability of our country will no longer be used as a pretext for anyone to stand in the way of courageous peace initiatives, the reduction of military service, the establishment of alternative military service and the overall humanization of military life.In our country there are many prisoners who, though they may have committed serious crimes and have been punished for them, have had to submit--despite the goodwill of some investigators, judges and above all defense lawyers--to a debased judiciary process that curtailed their rights.They now have to live in prisons that do not strive to awaken the better qualities contained in every person, but rather humiliate them and destroy them physically and mentally.In a view of this fact, I have decided to declare a relatively extensive amnesty.At the same time I call on the prisoners to understand that forty years of unjust investigations, trials and imprisonments cannot be put right overnight, and to understand that the changes that are being speedily prepared still require time to implement.By rebelling, the prisoners would help neither society nor themselves.I also call on the public not to fear the prisoners once they are released, not to make their lives difficult, to help them, in the Christian spirit, after their return among us to find within themselves that which jails could not find in them: the capacity to repent and the desire to live a respectable life.My honorable task is to strengthen the authority of our country in the world.I would be glad if other states respected us for showing understanding, tolerance and love for peace.I would be happy if Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama of Tibet could visit our country before the elections, if only for a day.I would be happy if our friendly relations with all nations were strengthened.I would be happy if we succeeded before the elections in establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican and Israel.I would also like to contribute to peace by briefly visiting our close neighbors, the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany.Neither shall I forget our other neighbors--fraternal Poland and the ever-closer countries of Hungary and Austria.In conclusion, I would like to say that I want to be a president who will speak less and work more.To be a president who will not only look out of the windows of his airplane but who, first and foremost, will always be present among his fellow citizens and listen to them well.You may ask what kind of republic I dream of.Let me reply: I dream of a republic independent, free, and democratic, of a republic economically prosperous and yet socially just;in short, of a humane republic that serves the individual and that therefore holds the hope that the individual will serve it in turn.Of a republic of well-rounded people, because without such people it is impossible to solve any of our problems--human, economic, ecological, social, or political.The most distinguished of my predecessors opened his first speech with a quotation from the great Czech educator Komensk.Allow me to conclude my first speech with my own paraphrase of the same statement:

People, your government has returned to you!

第三篇：如何认识人权高于主权

如何认识人权高于主权

政治与行政学院1002班10502101

龙昱廷

对于主权和人权之间的关系，我所持的观点是人权高于主权。因为，人，是组成国家的最基本的要素，如果一国连人民的最基本的权利和利益都保障不了，维护主权、维护国家人格又从何谈起？

英文中的主权(sovereignty)一词，因其拉丁文的本意即最高权力，16世纪法国人博丹在《论共和国》一书中把主权定义为“国内绝对的和永久的权力”，不受法律限制的统治公民和臣民的最高权力。博丹的主权学说属中央集权国家主权学说，主权者是君主，被称为国际法奠基者的荷兰法学家格老秀斯也认为主权属于国家，主权是国家的最高统治权。卢梭等提出人民主权的思想，这是与国家主权相对立的。作为一个历史性的概念，主权一词在数百年间获得众多内涵，但不论是作为思想，或是作为制度，都同一种强制性力量有关。

马克思认为，在资本主义社会，国家至少代表了私有财产作为政治和精神的最高现实，不管它如何将自己扮作公众的“公共权力”的代表，主权的代表，说是保障社会的普遍利益，实际上是带有欺骗性的。在他的理论中，国家主权是与人民主权相对立的，国家高踞于社会之上，以它的特殊利益、官僚化的机制和运作过程成为社会的寄生虫。20世纪初，政治多元主义作为一种思想流派开始形成。这一理论认为，民族国家其实也是众多社会团体之一，并不具有权力的独立性，而其他团体，自然也不是由国家授权产生的，它们完全以独立于国家的地位而存在。国家能否超越其他团体而获得优先的地位，则应决定于它对于国民的在实质上而不是形式上是否具有代表性。30年代广有影响的英国社会主义者拉斯基坚决反对使用“国家主权”的概念，他认为，国家主权仅仅是其命令被国民接受的可能性，与其他如教会、工会等的权力无异。国家对公民的制约力，并非服从政府的法律义务，而是遵守社会正义的道德义务。在他看来，个人是人类行为的最高仲裁者；主权属于个人，而不是国家。与这样的政治哲学密切相关的现代宪法学说，无一不将所有秩序、法律和法令的道德渊源推向个人公民，而不是社会结构的某一个极点；它们强调的是，所有国家行为都不能违反基本人权。罗尔斯在设计他著名的“万民法”时，声称首要的步骤是为国内社会制订正义原则。这一原则，包括“军队不得用于对付自己的人民”，“有序的法治”等等，总之是为了限制国家的漫无限制的国内自主，即对国内人民随心所欲的权利。他说：“主权权力也为国家授予了一种自主权以对付自己的人民。按我的观点，这种自主权纯属谬误。”他同时指出，“人权的作用更其明显地联系着国家国内主权权利的变化，这乃是适当确定及限制政府国内主权势力的一个组成部分。”

历史上进步的思想家一致主张对国家主权加以限制，不同的在于如何确定限制的主体。从卢梭到马克思，强调的是人民主体，是大众的权力，革命的权力，以人民的共同体代替国家的共同体。另一类是洛克以来的自由主义者，虽然在其内部存在一定的差异，但是，都同样强调公民个体的自由权利，即普遍人权。正义与自由，革命与人权，都是鲁迅所渴望争取的。“奴隶”这个词，在他那里，既是人民也是个人。在这两者之间，他始终表现出了一种内在的紧张，但是有一个交叉点是确定无疑的，就是否定国家主权。

当然，我们说看待任何问题都不能过于绝对，说人权高于主权并不就是否定主权，历史上一些强调人权重要性的学者也许过于偏激和极端，但由此我们也可以看出人权的重要性。

维护人权的主张，最早产生于自然法和自然权利的思想。古典自然法学派的创始人之一格老秀斯在《战争与和平》一书中专章论述了“人的普遍权利”。他主张个人有权拒绝参加非正义的战争，并倡导公民有迁徙权、经济自由权和为转移部分领土而进行投票的权利。人权作为一项道德原则被普遍接受，始于欧洲的文艺复兴时期。以提倡人文主义为核心的文艺复兴是一场伟大的思想解放运动。通过研究古代希腊和罗马文化，人们开始对人的价值有了新的认识。文艺复新标志着人们的思想冲破封建主义和神权的束缚，从盲目信仰到理性思考的转变，它对人权的发展起了重要的推动作用。伴随欧洲资产阶级革命的出现，人权进入到权利化、法律化的时代。斯宾诺莎在《神权政治论》中明确提出“天赋人权”的概念，认为这种天赋人权就是自然权利。而“天赋人权”理论的系统化得力于以英国人洛克为代表的启蒙思想家的自然权利学说。洛克既反对君权神授理论，也不同意霍布斯的君主专制论，他的全部政治法律思想富有自由主义、个人主义的色彩。洛克是坚定的自然法理论的倡导者，他的自然法理论的特点在于把自然状态、自然法同资产阶级的理想和利益联系起来，发展了人的“自然权利”理论学说。他把自然权利的具体内容概括为：

1、平等权；

2、自由权；

3、生存权；

4、财产权。他特别强调财产是神圣不可侵犯的，与生存权同样重要。这是人类历史上第一次对人权的内涵作了较为详细的阐释。后来，法国的孟德斯鸠和卢梭以及美国的潘恩和杰弗逊等人权的崇信者，都继承和发展了洛克的自然权利学说，并开始进行人权的规范化和法律化工作。

人权的概念在不同的历史时期有不同的解释。早期的资产阶级启蒙思想家主张人权是每个公民“基本的不可剥夺的权利”。被马克思称为人类历史上第一部人权宣言---美国的《独立宣言》把人的生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利列为被造物主赋予的、不可转让的权利。法国的《人权和公民权利宣言》将自由、财产、安全和反抗压迫的权利列为“人的自然的和不可动摇的权利”。这些概念明显受了自然法理论的影响，把人权视为单纯的个人权利，限制了权利主体的范围，忽略了与权利相对应的法律义务和权利主体行使权利时应顾及的历史、文化、习惯、道德、传统等条件。因此，一些人权法学者将此划分为第一代人权观。随着十九世纪末、二十世纪初国际共产主义运动的风起云涌，国际社会出现了主张包括就业权、同工同酬权、社会保障权在内的第二代人权观。第二代人权观除了强调人的生命权和自由权以外，还突出了人的生存权利。第三代人权观出现于二战后的反殖民化运动中，其内容包括民族自决权、发展权、和平权、继承人类共同遗产权等，它反映了二战以后人们开始追求国家独立与民族平等的理念。三代人权观出现在不同的历史时期，折射出的是个人主义、集体主义和国际主义不同的传统理念，反映了人权的概念是随着历史的发展而不断地发生变化。

60多年前，德、日、意法西斯侵略者为了实现重新瓜分世界的野心，悍然发动侵略战争，引发了人类历史上规模最大的战争，空前地残踏了世界人权。全球60多个国家、近20亿人被卷入这场有史以来最野蛮、最残酷的战争。据估计，因战争死亡的军人和平民超过5500万，经济损失约达15万亿美元。在那场正义与邪恶、光明与黑暗的殊死搏斗中，世界反法西斯力量同仇敌忾，并肩战斗，终于夺取了最后胜利，为捍卫世界人权事业做出了卓越贡献，并为战后世界人权事业的进展奠定了牢固基础。第二次世界大战期间，德、意、日法西斯进行了大规模的灭绝人性的集体屠杀。纳粹在德国执政期间，600多万犹太人惨遭杀害，仅奥斯威辛集中营的死亡人数就达150万。苏联因德国法西斯的侵略而付出了军民死亡2700万人的代价。据朱可夫回忆，战争结束时斯大林曾对他叹息说，“很难找到我们哪一个家庭没有丧失亲人！”这里就包括最高统帅的长子惨死在德军战俘营中。到1945年战争结束时，苏联成年男子约一半死亡或致残。在东方，日本侵略者制造了长达6周的惨绝人寰、震惊中外的南京大屠杀。30多万中国军民被枪杀与活埋。二战期间，全中国军民总计死伤3700多万，财产损失6000亿美元。世界所有被侵略的国家和人民都付出了沉重的血的代价。

鉴于整个世界面临着由战争、法西斯、种族屠杀等等带来的种种悲剧，各国人民事实上联合起来进行了“一场前所未有的为人权而战的战争。” 人权成为世界各国战胜法西斯的共同口号和目标。英国首相丘吉尔把这场战争的目标宣布为“在盘石上确立个人权利”，斯大林明确表示这是一场“保卫祖国的自由”，保卫各国“独立、民主自由的战争”，毛泽东在苏德战争爆发后宣布“目前共产党人在全世界的任务是保卫一切民族的自由和独立”；美国罗斯福总统在美国参战前就提出著名的“四大自由”主张，即言论自由，信仰自由，免于匮乏的自由，免于恐惧的自由。共同的人权宗旨和愿望奠定了人权国际化的基础。在战争中，一股以各种方式保障国际人权的世界性潮流兴起了。保障人权不再仅仅是各国国内政治问题，而被引入国际政治和国际法领域。“1945年前后，一群卓有远见的领导人决心让这个世纪的后半叶完全不同于头50年。”由此产生了“全球治理和建立联合国”思想的起源。人们认识到，“人类只有一个共同的地球，除非更谨慎地管理其事务，否则，整个人类将在劫难逃。” 1945年6月被称之为“战后国际和平大厦”的联合国诞生，50多个创始会员国代表参加。大会通过的《联合国宪章》，突出地将人权保障规定为本组织的宗旨。其中提到人权或人权保障问题的达7次之多。

《联合国宪章》虽然“重申基本人权、人格尊严与价值，以及男女与大小各国平等权利之信念”，将“增进并激励对于全人类之人权及基本自由之尊重”列为联合国的宗旨，并规定为实现这一宗旨，会员国负有与联合国合作的义务。但是，宪章对什么是“人权及基本自由”这一基本概念没有具体阐明，故而使得会员国所负的相应义务也变得非常笼统和抽象，因此，有必要对人权的基本概念进行梳理和完善。《世界人权宣言》首次以普遍性国际文件的形式对《联合国宪章》提到的“人权及基本自由”作了系统而详细的阐述，其目的是确定一种“所有人民和所有国家努力实现的共同标准”。尽管由于历史的局限性，《宣言在思想体系上仍属于“天赋人权”论，并明显的带有重公民、政治权利、轻经济、社会、文化权利的倾向，通篇阐述的只是个人权利而没有涉及集体人权，更没有对认得义务和责任给予足够的重视，但是《宣言》在当具有重要的进步意义，必须予以充分肯定。而从另一方面来说，《宣言》在沿袭西方国家传统的人权概念后，还吸收了国际人权运动发展中出现的新的主张和观点，包括经济、社会和文化方面的权利。第22条至第27条规定的权利包括社会保障权、同工同酬权、休息权、受教育权、参加社会文化活动的权利。这是对传统人权概念的突破。这些内容的制定为后来联大通过的《公民权利及政治权利国际公约》和《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》这两个文件奠定了基础。它的出台也成为国际人权运动的助推器。

《世界人权宣言》 人权的倡导者从一开始就主张“人人生而平等”。但是，平等的权利并不是与生俱来的。从英国《大宪章》的制定到法国的资产阶级大革命；从十九世纪美洲大陆兴起的废除奴隶制运动到二十世纪世界范围内的反法西斯战争；从二战后的反殖民化运动到当今世界广大发展中国家要求消除贫困，缩短贫富差距，这一切都说明整个人类的发展过程就是一部求生存、立人格、争平等的历史。可见人权并不是天赋的，而是靠权利主体自己的奋斗争取来的。世界反法西斯战争胜利留给世人的警示之一就是：要消除独裁与专制，捍卫人类的基本权利和尊严，必须依靠国际社会的共同努力。1948年12月10日，联合国大会通过的《世界人权宣言》为人类社会提供了一个关于人的权利的基本理念，它既是当代人类的普遍价值观，也是衡量一个国家人权状况的基本准则。《宣言》的制定遏制了一些国家以人权产生的社会基础不同为理由拒绝接受人权保护的基本标准，标志着人权保护从此由国内转向国际。

其实在我看来，人权和主权的关系就如鸡和鸡蛋的关系，说人权高于主权，那么主权不完整主权得不到保障，甚至连领土都无法由本国控制，又如何来保障本国人权？而反过来，说主权高于人权呢，就像一开始我所提到的，如果一国连人民的最基本的权利和利益都保障不了，维护主权、维护国家人格又从何谈起？我觉得这就像到底是先有鸡还是先有鸡蛋。其实我也做出了这样的设想，国内主张人权高于主权，而国际或一国相对于他国而言则主张主权高于人权。否则的话，若是全世界都坚持人权高于主权，那么我们是不是可以为了人权事业的发展而联合起来打击美国呢？因为美国对黑人的不平等的待遇，即美国的种族歧视本身就是对人权的侵犯。当然这只是我个人很幼稚的想法。所以也正如我前面所说，对于任何问题的讨论都是不能过于绝对的。

以上就是我对“人权高于主权”的简单而粗略的看法。我们中国向来提倡以人为本、以和为贵，我们不也说，世界人民是一家吗，我希望全世界都能正确看待人权和主权的关系，尊重人权，让世界和谐发展。

第四篇：Wentworth Miller西雅图人权战线HRC演讲

Thank you!

First and foremost, I wanna personally thank the human rights campaign for the incredible work that they’ve done and the work they continue to do.Not only here in Washington State but across the country and around the world, as we all know, this work is critical.It’s life-changing.It’s life-saving.It is my great honor and privilege to be here tonight, to count myself a member of this community.It is also something of a surprise.I’ve had a complicated relationship with that word “community”.I’ve been slow to embrace it.I’ve been hesitant.I’ve been doubtful.For many years, I could not or would not accept that there was anything in that word for someone like me, like connection, support, strength, warmth.And there are reasons for that.I wasn’t born in this country.I didn’t grow up in any one particular religion.I have a mixed race background.And I’m gay.Really, it just your typical all American boy next door.It’s been natural to see myself as an individual.It’s been challenge to imagine myself as part of something larger.Like many of you here tonight, I grow up in what I would call “survival mode”.When you are in survival mode, you focus is on getting through the day in one piece.When you are in that mode at five, at ten, at fifteen, there isn’t a lot of space for words like community, for words like us and we.There’s only space for I and me.In fact, words like us and we not only sound foreign to me at five, and ten, and fifteen, they sounded like a lie.Because if us and we really existed, if there was really someone out there watching, and listening and caring, then I would have been rescued by now.That feeling of being singular, different and alone carried over my twentieth, and then to my thirtieth.When I was thirty-three, I started working on a TV show that was successful not only here in the states but also abroad, which meant over the next four years, I was traveling to Asia, to the middle east, to Europe and everywhere in between.And in that time, I gave thousands of interviews.I have multiple opportunities to speak my truth which is that I was gay.But I chose not to.I was out privately to family and friends, to the people I learnt to trust over time, but professionally, publicly I was not.As to choose between being out of integrity and out of the closet, I chose the former, I chose to lie, I chose to dissemble.Because when I thought about the possibility of coming out, about how that might impact me and the career that I worked so hard for, I was filled with fear, fear and anger, and the stubborn resistance that have built up over many years.When I thought about that kids somewhere out there who might be inspired or moved by me taking a stand, speaking my truth, my mental response was consistently “no, thank you”.I thought I’ve spent over a decade building this career, alone, by myself.And from a certain point of view, it’s all I have.But now I’m suppose to put that at risk, to be a role model to someone I’ve never met, who I’m not even sure exists.It didn’t make any sense to me.I did not resignate at that time.Also like many of you here tonight, growing up I was a target.Speaking the right way, standing the right way, holding your wrist the right way.Everyday was a test, there was a thousand ways to fail, a thousand way to betray yourself, to not live up to someone else’s standard of what was acceptable, of what was normal.And when you failed the test, which was guaranteed, there was a price to pay, emotional, psychological, physical.And like many of you, I paid that price, more than once and in a variety of ways.The first time I tried to kill myself, I was fifteen.I waited until my family went away for the weekend and I was alone in the house and I swallowed a bottle of pills.I don’t remember what happened over the next couple of days, but I’m pretty sure come Monday morning, I was on the bus back to school, pretending everything was fine.And when someone asked if that was a cry for help, I say no.Because I told no one.You only cry for help if you believe there is help to cry for.And I didn’t, I want it out, I want it gone, at fifteen.I and me can be a lonely place and it’ll only get you so far.By 2011, I made the decision to walk away from acting and many of the things I previously believed so important, to me.And after giving up the scripts and sets which I was dreamt I was a child, and the resulting attention and scrutiny which I had not dreamt of as a child.The only thing I have left with was what I have when I started.I and me.And it was not enough.In 2012, I joined a man’s group called mankind project, which is a man’s group for all man.I was introduced to the still foreign and still potentially threatening concepts of “us and we”, to the idea of brotherhood, sisterhood and community.And it is via that community that I became a member and proud supporter of the human rights campaign.And it was via this community that I learnt more about the persecution of my LGBT brothers and sisters in Russia.Several weeks ago, when I was drafting my letter to Saint Petersburg International Film Festival declining their invitation to attend, a small nagging voice in my head insisted that no one would notice, that no one was watching, or listening, or caring.But this time, finally, I knew that voice was wrong.I thought even one person notice this, this letter in which I speak my truth and integrate my small story into a much larger and more important one.It’s worth sending.I thought let me be to someone else what no one was to me.Let me send the message to that kid, maybe in America, maybe someplace far overseas, maybe somewhere deep inside, a kid who’s been targeted at home or school or in the streets, that someone is watching and listening and caring, that there is an “us”, that there is a “we”, and that kid or teenager of adult is loved.And they are not alone.I’m deeply grateful to the human rights campaign for giving me and others like me the opportunity and the platform and the imperative to tell my story, to continue sending that message because it needs to be sent, over and over again, until it’s been heard and received and embraced.Not just here in Washington State, not just across the country but around the world and then back again.Just in case, just in case we missed someone.Thank you!

第五篇：《人权、国家与文明》读后感

《人权、国家与文明》读后感

本学期的开设了《宪法学》的专业课，宪法学是以宪法为研究对象的一门学科，属于法学的分支学科。宪法是国家的根本大法，适用于国家全体公民，国家内部政治力量的对比关系的变化对宪法的发展变化起着直接作用，国际关系也对宪法发展趋势有所影响。所以学习宪法学对我们普通公民来说同样有着重要的意义。在老师的推荐下，我在学习宪法学课程的同时阅读了日本明治大学教授大沼保昭所著的《人权、国家与文明》。此书全称是《人权、国家与文明：从普遍主义的人权到文明相容的人权观》，书的内容包括动摇国际秩序的三个相克和文明相容方法的必要性、国际社会中的自然权思想、人权能超过主权吗，不干涉内政原则与“普遍性价值”之间的相克等。虽然我学识粗浅，但无疑从这本书中获益匪浅。同时我也渐渐领悟法学强调秩序与和谐、自由与权利、公平与正义。法学理念的创新，精神的卓越，能使民主更趋进步，亦促使社会更尊人权，从而使我们的国家更加强盛，人民更为幸福。

人权,这一美妙的字眼越来越多地被赋予了意识形态的色彩。西方大国利用人权来为其霸权政治作正当性辩解,发展中国家,为应对西方大国的人权攻势,从实用主义出发提出了“主权高于人权”的观点来与“人权高于主权”的观点对抗。西文大国极力主张人权的普遍性,而发展中国家却强调建立在文化相对主义基础上的人权的特殊性。在当今世界上,“人权的神圣名义,无论其可能意味着什么,都能被人们用来维护或反对一个事物”。“人权似乎什么都是,又似乎什么都不是”。这本书针对欧美中心的人权主义，提出文明协商和文明相容的人权观，并强调应该取代唯一正确的那种普遍主义人权概念，开放拓展人权讨论的话语空间；作者同时敦促亚洲各国，尤其是中国，应该有力地介入“文明相容的人权观”，打破欧美的中心指导作用。

人权这一概念，从洛克等人提出自然权利的概念发展到现在，几番波折，现在已经成为了国际社会关注的焦点之一，人权越来越多的成为了一种政治斗争的工具。不同的国家、政府、组织和个人都在谈论着人权，但是他们口中的人权或者人权的标准和价值则是千人千面，人们总是出于自身的利益需要而从自身出发去谈论人权。这种形式下人权的发展不是和谐的，而是对抗的；不是良性的，而是急功近利的。这种表面上的欣欣向荣背后，隐藏着的是人权的堕落。人权在其思想萌发以及发展的初期，并不具有普遍性，欧美国家目前所强调的人权固有的普遍性，不过是一种托词罢了。但是这并不能否认人权的普遍性的价值。大沼保昭教授对人权发展的历史，得出的结论是：“某种观念只要具有作为理念的普遍化可能性，那么，即使它曾经是一种拥护受限定主体利益的意识形态，也依然具有超越这些主体的个别利益而发展成普遍性理念的历史性活力”。人权的普遍性，包括主体的普遍性和概念本身的普遍化，在现代社会是得到承认的，而普遍的人权标准也是有其理论上的正当性的，那么，所谓的“普遍主义”与“相对主义”之争就不应该成为东西方之间或者说发达国家与发展中国家之间人权对抗的冲突点。真正造成不同国家之间就人权问题形成对抗的原因主要是在于目前欧美中心主义的所谓的普遍人权标准，其实并不具有正统性。

大沼保昭所提出的“文明相容的人权观”，就是对于达到一种真正具有正统性的普遍人权标准的途径的探索。文明相容的过程，也可以逐步消除人权自身的对抗性特征。人权的理论源头“自然权利”和“人的权利”诞生于个体与教会、王权等共同体的斗争之中，因此人权也不免带有一种对抗的意味。文明相容的途径能够有效的是现在一国主权之下，个人与国家之间的就人权事务的和谐共存。毕竟，不干涉原则在国际社会中是主流，而联合国对于大规模侵害人权事件进行干涉只是例外，因此，人权的保障和发展主要还是要靠国家的推动。个人与国家的和谐关系，能够使更多的发展中国家接受人权的概念，从而保证人权健康而持续的发展。另外，在文明相容的过程中，吸收不同文明的特点，将为人权的理论增加新的内涵，比如和谐权的提出就是儒教文明与人权相容的成果。文明相容与和谐人权是一种手段和目标的关系，通过一种文明相容的过程，最终达到人权标准形成过程的和谐，人权发展的和谐和人权历史的和谐，这种和谐人权才是真正的普遍人权，能够保持健康持续的发展。

从孔子的“大同世界”到柏拉图的理想国，人类对于一种美好世界的追求，从未停止。从洛克的“自然权利”到《世界人权宣言》再到以7个联合国核心人权公约为基准的国际人权保护体系，人权的普遍化为各个不同的文明提供了一条共同的达到理想世界的道路。人权对于个人，是到达一种由尊严的生活的手段，而对于国家，人权就应该是目的本身。为了达到这个目的，不论是“正义”还是“仁”，各种文明对于善的诉求都应该被吸收进人权的框架之内。这种文明相容的视角，为人权的发展和人权标准的制定实施带来了一种新的途径的同时，也为人权本身的评价带来了一种新的标准，那就是和谐。文明相容的目标，就在于达成一种和谐的人权。以和谐包容多样的文明，以和谐化解人权本身的对抗，以和谐消除发展中国家对于人权的疑虑，这样的人权和人权标准，才能真正的维持我们对于基本人权、人格尊严和价值以及男女平等权利的信念；实现对于人人享有言论和信仰自由并免予恐惧和匮乏的世界能够来临的梦想；不辜负使子孙后代免予那些对人权无视和侮蔑的野蛮暴行的寄托，相信在一种和谐人权标准的评价和努力之下，人人都能过上有尊严的生活的目标终能实现。