第一篇：哈維爾關于主權與人權的演講

人權高于國家主權——哈維爾

發信站: 小百合BBS(Sun Oct 30 23:33:26 2005)

1999年4月29日 在加拿大國會的演說

尊敬的總理、參議長、眾議長、參議員、眾議員，各位來賓：

能在這里演說，我的確感到非常榮幸。我愿借此機會就國家及其可能在未來的地位說 一些看法。

所有跡象表明，作為每個民族共同體的發展頂峰與人類的最高價值----事實上這是可 以為其殺人或值得為它而死的唯一價值----的民族國家，已經越過了其最高頂點而開始走 下坡路。

若干代追求民主人士所從事的啟蒙事業，兩次世界大戰的可怕經歷，對於制訂世界人 權宣言以及人類文明的全面發展，作出了非常重要的貢獻，似乎正逐漸使人類認識到，人 比某一國家更為重要。

在當今世界，國家主權的偶像一定會逐漸消解。當今這個世界透過在商業、金融、財 產，直到信息方面的數以百萬計的整合性聯系，將各國人民聯為一體；這種聯系還提供了 各種普遍觀念和文化模式。而且，在當今的世界，對一些人的危險會立即影響到其他所有 人；由於許多原因，特別是由於科學技術的巨大進展，我們各自的命運已融合為一種單一 的命運；無論我們喜歡與否，我們都要對發生的一切承擔責任。

顯然，在這樣一個世界里，盲目熱愛自己的國家，把愛國置於至高無上地位，僅僅因 為它是自己國家而為它的任何行動尋找借口，僅僅是因為不是自己國家而反對其他國家的 任何行動，這種愛國必然變成一種危險的時代顛倒，一種產生沖突的溫床，最終會成為無 數人類苦難的源泉。

我認為，在下一個世紀，大多數國家將開始從那種類似邪教團體的、訴諸情感的實體，轉變為更為簡單的、公民享有更多管理權力的單位。這種單位將擁有較小的權力，但它 更富於理性，它僅僅是一個復雜的、多層次的、社會自我管理的全球組織的層次之一。這 種轉變，要求我們逐漸拋棄那種互不干預的觀念，即那種認為其他國家發生的事，其他國 家對人權尊重與否，與己無關的觀念。

誰來承擔現在由國家行使的多種功能呢？

首先來看國家在訴諸情感方面的功能。我認為，這些功能將被更平等地分配給組成人 類同一性的多層次的領域，即人類活動於其中的多層次領域，也就是我們看作自己家園或 自然界的各種領域，家庭、公司、村莊、城鎮、地區、專業、教會、協會，以及我們所在 的大陸和我們居住的行星----地球。所有這些組成我們的自我認同的多種環境。而且，迄 今已膨脹過度的我們與自己國家間的連系如果受到削弱，這必定有利於其他領域。

至於國家的實際職責與法律制度，可以向上和向下轉移。向下轉移是指國家應該把其 現行的許多職權，逐步轉移給公民社會的各種組織和機構。向上轉移是指國家把其許多職 權，轉移給各種地區性的、跨國的和全球性的團體和組織。這種職權轉移現已開始進行。在某些地區，這種轉移已走得相當遠；在另一些地區則進展較小。

然而，由於許多原因，這種發展趨勢必須沿著這條道路繼續發展下去。如果界定現代 民主國家的特徵，通常包括尊重人權和自由、公民平等、法治和公民社會，那麼作為人類 未來目標的這種生存方式，或者人類為自己的生存而應該朝著它前進的生存方式，也許可 以被界定為一種以世界性或全球性的尊重人權、世界性的公民平等、世界性的法治和全球 性的公民社會為基礎的生存方式。

民族國家建立過程中伴隨的一個重要問題是國家的地理邊界，即其疆界的確定。無數 的因素，包括種族的、歷史的、文化的因素，地理因素，權力利益，以及整個文明狀態，都在其中起著重要作用。

建立地區性或跨國性的更大共同體，有時會遇到同樣的問題。在某種程度上，這種問 題可能從加入共同體的民族國家那里繼承而來。我們應該用一切力量來保護這一自我界定 的過程不會像民族國家的建立過程那麼痛苦。

例如，加拿大和捷克現在是同一防御性組織--北大西洋公約組織的成員。這是一個具 有歷史重要意義的發展過程，即北約擴展到中歐和東歐國家的結果。這一過程的重要性在 於，它是為了打破鐵幕、在真實上而不僅在口頭上廢除雅爾塔協議，所邁出的真正嚴肅的、歷史上不可逆轉的第一步。

眾所周知，這一擴展過程遠非容易，而且是在兩極對立的世界結束十年後才成為現實。進展如此困難的原因之一，是由於俄羅斯聯邦的反對。他們對此不理解而且十分擔心： 為何西方要向俄羅斯附近國家擴展，而不接納俄羅斯？如果我在此刻撇開所有其他動機，俄羅斯的這種態度暴露了一個非常有趣的問題，即俄羅斯世界或東方世界對自己的地理疆 界不清楚。北約與俄羅斯結成夥伴的前提條件是：地球上存在著兩個對等的強大實體，即 歐洲-大西洋實體和廣袤的歐洲-亞洲實體。這兩個實體可以而且必須相互攜手合作，這對 全世界有利。但之所以能這樣做是因為雙方都意識到自己的身份，都知道自己的范圍在何 處。在這個問題上，俄羅斯在其歷史發展過程中就遇到某些困難，并把這些困難帶到現今 世界，而在現今世界，地理邊界不再涉及民族國家，而是涉及文化和文明的地區和區域。的確，俄羅斯有許多與歐洲--大西洋或西方相聯系的東西，但如同拉丁美洲、非洲、遠東、其他地區或大陸，俄羅斯也有許多與西方不同的東西。世界的各地區存在著差別，這一 事實并不意味著有些地區比另一些地區更有價值。它們是互相平等的。它們僅僅在某些方 面有所不同。但不相同□不意味著可恥。俄羅斯在一方面認為自己是一個實體，是一個應 該受到特殊對待的全球強國；另一方面，它又因為自己被看成是一個獨立實體，一個很難 成為另一實體之組成部分的實體，而感到不舒服。

俄羅斯正在逐漸習慣北約的擴展，有一天它會完全習慣這種擴展。我們希望，這將不 僅是恩格斯所謂的被認識到的必然性的一種表現，而且是新的更深刻的自我理解的一種表 現。在這個多元文化、多極化的新環境里，正如其他國家必須學會重新界定自己，俄羅斯 也必須這樣作。這不僅意味著，它不能永遠以自大狂或自戀來代替自然的自信心，而且意 味著它必須認識到何處是自己的疆界。例如，擁有豐富自然資源的廣袤無邊的西伯利亞，屬於俄羅斯；而小小的愛沙尼亞就不屬於并永遠不屬於俄羅斯。而且，如果愛沙尼亞屬於 北約或歐盟所代表的世界，俄羅斯必須理解和尊重這一點，而不應把這看成是一種敵意的 表現。

只要人類能經受人類為自己準備備的所有危險的考驗，二十一世紀的世界將是一個以平等為基礎的，人類在范圍更大的、有時甚至覆蓋整個大陸的跨國組織內更密切合作的世 界。為了使這個世界變成現實，人類文明的各種實體、文化或領域必須清晰地認識到自己 的身份，了解自己與別人的差異所在，認識到這種差異性不是一種障礙，而是對人類全球 財富的一種貢獻。當然，那些對自己的差異性抱優越感的人也必須認識到這一點。

聯合國是所有國家和跨國實體能坐在一起平等討論、并做出決定影響整個世界的最重 要組織之一。聯合國如果要成功地完成廿一世紀賦予它的任務，必須做重大改革。

聯合國的最重要機構安理會，不能繼續維持它剛開始成立時的狀況。相反，它必須公 正合理地反映今日的多極化世界。我們必須思考，某一個國家是否一定有權否決其他各國 的共同決定。我們必須考慮，許多重要而強大的國家在安理會內沒有代表權這個問題。我 們必須探索輪流性的安理會非常任理事國等制度問題。我們還必須減少整個聯合國龐大機 構的官僚主義，提高其工作效率。我們必須討論如何才能使聯合國機構，特別是其全體大 會的決策過程具有真正的彈性。

最重要的是，我們必須使地球上所有居民確實將聯合國看成是自己的組織，而不只是 一個由各國政府組成的俱樂部。最關鍵一點是，聯合國應該是為地球上全體人類而不是為 了個別國家謀利益。因而，聯合國的財務程序，會員國申請程序和審批程序，也許應該加 以改革。這并不是要剝奪國家的權力并以某種龐大的全球之國取而代之，而是不能讓一切 事務都一定要而且只能通過國家及其政府來處理。正是為了人類的利益，為了人權、自由 以及一般意義上的生命的利益，應該存在多種渠道，使世界領袖的決策到達公民，并使公 民達到世界領袖。多種渠道意味著更多的平衡和更廣闊的相互監督。

顯然，我不是在反對國家機構。一國的首腦在另一國的國會演講時宣傳國家應該廢除，這是相當荒謬的。但我講的是其他問題。我講的是，事實上存在著一種高於國家的價值。這種價值就是人。眾所周知，國家要為人民服務的而不是與此相反。公民服務於自己國 家的唯一理由，是因為對於國家為所有公民提供良好服務而言，公民的服務非常必要。人 權高於國家權利。人類自由是一種高於國家主權的價值。就國際法體系而言，保護單個人 的國際法律優先於保護國家的國際法律。

在當今世界，如果我們各自的命運已融合成單一的一種命運，如果任何人都應對全人 類的未來負責，那麼，任何人，任何國家，都不應擁有限制人民履行自己職責的權利。各 國的外交政策應該逐漸脫離那種常見的構成其核心的東西，即自己國家的利益，自己國家 外交政策的利益，因為這類利益傾向於分裂而不是團結人類。確實，人人都有某種利益，這是完全自然的，沒有理由認為我們應該拋棄自己的合法權利。但有一種東西高於我們的 利益，這就是我們信奉的原則。這些原則能團結我們而不是分裂我們。而且，這些原則是 衡量我們的利益是否具有合法性的標尺。許多國家的教義是，為了國家的利益而堅持某原 則，這種說法站不住腳。原則必須為了其自身而被尊重或堅持。就原則而言，利益應該來 源於原則。例如，如果我說，為了捷克的利益才需要有公平合理的世界和平，這是不對的。我應該說，必須有公平合理的世界和平，而捷克的利益必須服從於它。

北約正在進行一場反對米洛謝維奇的種族滅絕統治的戰爭。這既非一場可以輕易獲勝 的戰爭，也非一場人人擁護的戰爭。對於北約的戰略戰術，人們可能存在著不同觀點。但 任何具有正常判斷力的人都不能否認一點：這可能是人類并非為了利益、而是為了堅持某 種原則和價值所進行的第一場戰爭。如果可以這樣評價戰爭的話，那麼這確實是一場合乎 道德的戰爭，一場為了道德原因而打的戰爭。科索伏沒有可以使某些人感興趣的油田，任 何北約成員國對科索伏沒有任何領土要求，米洛謝維奇也沒有威脅任何北約成員國或其他 國家的領土主權。盡管如此，北約卻在打仗，正在打一場代表人類利益、為了拯救他人命 運的戰爭，因為正派的人不能對國家領導下的系統性地屠殺他人坐視不管。正直的人絕不 能容忍這種事，而且，絕不能在能夠救援的情況下而不施援手。

這場戰爭將人權置於優先於國家權利的地位。北約對南斯拉夫的攻擊沒有獲得聯合國 的直接授權。但北約的行動并非出於肆無忌憚、侵略性或不尊重國際法。恰恰相反，北約 的行動是出於對國際法的尊重，出於對其地位高於保護國家主權的國際法的尊重，出於對 人權的尊重，因為人權是我們的良心及其他國際法律所明確闡明的。

我認為，這場戰爭為未來立下了一個重要的先例，它已明確宣告，不允許屠殺人民，不允許將人民驅離家園，不允許虐待人民，不允許剝奪人民的財產。它還表明，人權不可 分割，對一些人不公正也就是對所有人的不公正。……

過去我曾經多次思索，為何人擁有的某種權利高於其他任何權利。我得到的結論是，人權、人的自由和人的尊嚴深深地置根於地球世界之外。它之所以得到這種地位是因為在 某些環境下，人類自覺地而不是被迫地把它看成是一種重於自己生命的價值。因而，這些 觀念只有以無限空間和永恒時間為背景才有意義。我堅信，我們的所有行動，無論它們是 否與我們的良心相和諧，其真實價值最終將在某個超出我們視線的地方接受檢驗。如果我 們感覺不到這一點，或者下意識地懷疑這一點，我們將一事無成。

對於國家及其在未來可能扮演的角色，我的結論是：國家是人的產物，而人是上帝的 產物。

第二篇：哈維爾1990年新年演講

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：如何認識人權高于主權

如何認識人權高于主權

政治與行政學院1002班10502101

龍昱廷

對于主權和人權之間的關系，我所持的觀點是人權高于主權。因為，人，是組成國家的最基本的要素，如果一國連人民的最基本的權利和利益都保障不了，維護主權、維護國家人格又從何談起？

英文中的主權(sovereignty)一詞，因其拉丁文的本意即最高權力，16世紀法國人博丹在《論共和國》一書中把主權定義為“國內絕對的和永久的權力”，不受法律限制的統治公民和臣民的最高權力。博丹的主權學說屬中央集權國家主權學說，主權者是君主，被稱為國際法奠基者的荷蘭法學家格老秀斯也認為主權屬于國家，主權是國家的最高統治權。盧梭等提出人民主權的思想，這是與國家主權相對立的。作為一個歷史性的概念，主權一詞在數百年間獲得眾多內涵，但不論是作為思想，或是作為制度，都同一種強制性力量有關。

馬克思認為，在資本主義社會，國家至少代表了私有財產作為政治和精神的最高現實，不管它如何將自己扮作公眾的“公共權力”的代表，主權的代表，說是保障社會的普遍利益，實際上是帶有欺騙性的。在他的理論中，國家主權是與人民主權相對立的，國家高踞于社會之上，以它的特殊利益、官僚化的機制和運作過程成為社會的寄生蟲。20世紀初，政治多元主義作為一種思想流派開始形成。這一理論認為，民族國家其實也是眾多社會團體之一，并不具有權力的獨立性，而其他團體，自然也不是由國家授權產生的，它們完全以獨立于國家的地位而存在。國家能否超越其他團體而獲得優先的地位，則應決定于它對于國民的在實質上而不是形式上是否具有代表性。30年代廣有影響的英國社會主義者拉斯基堅決反對使用“國家主權”的概念，他認為，國家主權僅僅是其命令被國民接受的可能性，與其他如教會、工會等的權力無異。國家對公民的制約力，并非服從政府的法律義務，而是遵守社會正義的道德義務。在他看來，個人是人類行為的最高仲裁者；主權屬于個人，而不是國家。與這樣的政治哲學密切相關的現代憲法學說，無一不將所有秩序、法律和法令的道德淵源推向個人公民，而不是社會結構的某一個極點；它們強調的是，所有國家行為都不能違反基本人權。羅爾斯在設計他著名的“萬民法”時，聲稱首要的步驟是為國內社會制訂正義原則。這一原則，包括“軍隊不得用于對付自己的人民”，“有序的法治”等等，總之是為了限制國家的漫無限制的國內自主，即對國內人民隨心所欲的權利。他說：“主權權力也為國家授予了一種自主權以對付自己的人民。按我的觀點，這種自主權純屬謬誤。”他同時指出，“人權的作用更其明顯地聯系著國家國內主權權利的變化，這乃是適當確定及限制政府國內主權勢力的一個組成部分。”

歷史上進步的思想家一致主張對國家主權加以限制，不同的在于如何確定限制的主體。從盧梭到馬克思，強調的是人民主體，是大眾的權力，革命的權力，以人民的共同體代替國家的共同體。另一類是洛克以來的自由主義者，雖然在其內部存在一定的差異，但是，都同樣強調公民個體的自由權利，即普遍人權。正義與自由，革命與人權，都是魯迅所渴望爭取的。“奴隸”這個詞，在他那里，既是人民也是個人。在這兩者之間，他始終表現出了一種內在的緊張，但是有一個交叉點是確定無疑的，就是否定國家主權。

當然，我們說看待任何問題都不能過于絕對，說人權高于主權并不就是否定主權，歷史上一些強調人權重要性的學者也許過于偏激和極端，但由此我們也可以看出人權的重要性。

維護人權的主張，最早產生于自然法和自然權利的思想。古典自然法學派的創始人之一格老秀斯在《戰爭與和平》一書中專章論述了“人的普遍權利”。他主張個人有權拒絕參加非正義的戰爭，并倡導公民有遷徙權、經濟自由權和為轉移部分領土而進行投票的權利。人權作為一項道德原則被普遍接受，始于歐洲的文藝復興時期。以提倡人文主義為核心的文藝復興是一場偉大的思想解放運動。通過研究古代希臘和羅馬文化，人們開始對人的價值有了新的認識。文藝復新標志著人們的思想沖破封建主義和神權的束縛，從盲目信仰到理性思考的轉變，它對人權的發展起了重要的推動作用。伴隨歐洲資產階級革命的出現，人權進入到權利化、法律化的時代。斯賓諾莎在《神權政治論》中明確提出“天賦人權”的概念，認為這種天賦人權就是自然權利。而“天賦人權”理論的系統化得力于以英國人洛克為代表的啟蒙思想家的自然權利學說。洛克既反對君權神授理論，也不同意霍布斯的君主專制論，他的全部政治法律思想富有自由主義、個人主義的色彩。洛克是堅定的自然法理論的倡導者，他的自然法理論的特點在于把自然狀態、自然法同資產階級的理想和利益聯系起來，發展了人的“自然權利”理論學說。他把自然權利的具體內容概括為：

1、平等權；

2、自由權；

3、生存權；

4、財產權。他特別強調財產是神圣不可侵犯的，與生存權同樣重要。這是人類歷史上第一次對人權的內涵作了較為詳細的闡釋。后來，法國的孟德斯鳩和盧梭以及美國的潘恩和杰弗遜等人權的崇信者，都繼承和發展了洛克的自然權利學說，并開始進行人權的規范化和法律化工作。

人權的概念在不同的歷史時期有不同的解釋。早期的資產階級啟蒙思想家主張人權是每個公民“基本的不可剝奪的權利”。被馬克思稱為人類歷史上第一部人權宣言---美國的《獨立宣言》把人的生命權、自由權和追求幸福的權利列為被造物主賦予的、不可轉讓的權利。法國的《人權和公民權利宣言》將自由、財產、安全和反抗壓迫的權利列為“人的自然的和不可動搖的權利”。這些概念明顯受了自然法理論的影響，把人權視為單純的個人權利，限制了權利主體的范圍，忽略了與權利相對應的法律義務和權利主體行使權利時應顧及的歷史、文化、習慣、道德、傳統等條件。因此，一些人權法學者將此劃分為第一代人權觀。隨著十九世紀末、二十世紀初國際共產主義運動的風起云涌，國際社會出現了主張包括就業權、同工同酬權、社會保障權在內的第二代人權觀。第二代人權觀除了強調人的生命權和自由權以外，還突出了人的生存權利。第三代人權觀出現于二戰后的反殖民化運動中，其內容包括民族自決權、發展權、和平權、繼承人類共同遺產權等，它反映了二戰以后人們開始追求國家獨立與民族平等的理念。三代人權觀出現在不同的歷史時期，折射出的是個人主義、集體主義和國際主義不同的傳統理念，反映了人權的概念是隨著歷史的發展而不斷地發生變化。

60多年前，德、日、意法西斯侵略者為了實現重新瓜分世界的野心，悍然發動侵略戰爭，引發了人類歷史上規模最大的戰爭，空前地殘踏了世界人權。全球60多個國家、近20億人被卷入這場有史以來最野蠻、最殘酷的戰爭。據估計，因戰爭死亡的軍人和平民超過5500萬，經濟損失約達15萬億美元。在那場正義與邪惡、光明與黑暗的殊死搏斗中，世界反法西斯力量同仇敵愾，并肩戰斗，終于奪取了最后勝利，為捍衛世界人權事業做出了卓越貢獻，并為戰后世界人權事業的進展奠定了牢固基礎。第二次世界大戰期間，德、意、日法西斯進行了大規模的滅絕人性的集體屠殺。納粹在德國執政期間，600多萬猶太人慘遭殺害，僅奧斯威辛集中營的死亡人數就達150萬。蘇聯因德國法西斯的侵略而付出了軍民死亡2700萬人的代價。據朱可夫回憶，戰爭結束時斯大林曾對他嘆息說，“很難找到我們哪一個家庭沒有喪失親人！”這里就包括最高統帥的長子慘死在德軍戰俘營中。到1945年戰爭結束時，蘇聯成年男子約一半死亡或致殘。在東方，日本侵略者制造了長達6周的慘絕人寰、震驚中外的南京大屠殺。30多萬中國軍民被槍殺與活埋。二戰期間，全中國軍民總計死傷3700多萬，財產損失6000億美元。世界所有被侵略的國家和人民都付出了沉重的血的代價。

鑒于整個世界面臨著由戰爭、法西斯、種族屠殺等等帶來的種種悲劇，各國人民事實上聯合起來進行了“一場前所未有的為人權而戰的戰爭。” 人權成為世界各國戰勝法西斯的共同口號和目標。英國首相丘吉爾把這場戰爭的目標宣布為“在盤石上確立個人權利”，斯大林明確表示這是一場“保衛祖國的自由”，保衛各國“獨立、民主自由的戰爭”，毛澤東在蘇德戰爭爆發后宣布“目前共產黨人在全世界的任務是保衛一切民族的自由和獨立”；美國羅斯福總統在美國參戰前就提出著名的“四大自由”主張，即言論自由，信仰自由，免于匱乏的自由，免于恐懼的自由。共同的人權宗旨和愿望奠定了人權國際化的基礎。在戰爭中，一股以各種方式保障國際人權的世界性潮流興起了。保障人權不再僅僅是各國國內政治問題，而被引入國際政治和國際法領域。“1945年前后，一群卓有遠見的領導人決心讓這個世紀的后半葉完全不同于頭50年。”由此產生了“全球治理和建立聯合國”思想的起源。人們認識到，“人類只有一個共同的地球，除非更謹慎地管理其事務，否則，整個人類將在劫難逃。” 1945年6月被稱之為“戰后國際和平大廈”的聯合國誕生，50多個創始會員國代表參加。大會通過的《聯合國憲章》，突出地將人權保障規定為本組織的宗旨。其中提到人權或人權保障問題的達7次之多。

《聯合國憲章》雖然“重申基本人權、人格尊嚴與價值，以及男女與大小各國平等權利之信念”，將“增進并激勵對于全人類之人權及基本自由之尊重”列為聯合國的宗旨，并規定為實現這一宗旨，會員國負有與聯合國合作的義務。但是，憲章對什么是“人權及基本自由”這一基本概念沒有具體闡明，故而使得會員國所負的相應義務也變得非常籠統和抽象，因此，有必要對人權的基本概念進行梳理和完善。《世界人權宣言》首次以普遍性國際文件的形式對《聯合國憲章》提到的“人權及基本自由”作了系統而詳細的闡述，其目的是確定一種“所有人民和所有國家努力實現的共同標準”。盡管由于歷史的局限性，《宣言在思想體系上仍屬于“天賦人權”論，并明顯的帶有重公民、政治權利、輕經濟、社會、文化權利的傾向，通篇闡述的只是個人權利而沒有涉及集體人權，更沒有對認得義務和責任給予足夠的重視，但是《宣言》在當具有重要的進步意義，必須予以充分肯定。而從另一方面來說，《宣言》在沿襲西方國家傳統的人權概念后，還吸收了國際人權運動發展中出現的新的主張和觀點，包括經濟、社會和文化方面的權利。第22條至第27條規定的權利包括社會保障權、同工同酬權、休息權、受教育權、參加社會文化活動的權利。這是對傳統人權概念的突破。這些內容的制定為后來聯大通過的《公民權利及政治權利國際公約》和《經濟、社會、文化權利國際公約》這兩個文件奠定了基礎。它的出臺也成為國際人權運動的助推器。

《世界人權宣言》 人權的倡導者從一開始就主張“人人生而平等”。但是，平等的權利并不是與生俱來的。從英國《大憲章》的制定到法國的資產階級大革命；從十九世紀美洲大陸興起的廢除奴隸制運動到二十世紀世界范圍內的反法西斯戰爭；從二戰后的反殖民化運動到當今世界廣大發展中國家要求消除貧困，縮短貧富差距，這一切都說明整個人類的發展過程就是一部求生存、立人格、爭平等的歷史。可見人權并不是天賦的，而是靠權利主體自己的奮斗爭取來的。世界反法西斯戰爭勝利留給世人的警示之一就是：要消除獨裁與專制，捍衛人類的基本權利和尊嚴，必須依靠國際社會的共同努力。1948年12月10日，聯合國大會通過的《世界人權宣言》為人類社會提供了一個關于人的權利的基本理念，它既是當代人類的普遍價值觀，也是衡量一個國家人權狀況的基本準則。《宣言》的制定遏制了一些國家以人權產生的社會基礎不同為理由拒絕接受人權保護的基本標準，標志著人權保護從此由國內轉向國際。

其實在我看來，人權和主權的關系就如雞和雞蛋的關系，說人權高于主權，那么主權不完整主權得不到保障，甚至連領土都無法由本國控制，又如何來保障本國人權？而反過來，說主權高于人權呢，就像一開始我所提到的，如果一國連人民的最基本的權利和利益都保障不了，維護主權、維護國家人格又從何談起？我覺得這就像到底是先有雞還是先有雞蛋。其實我也做出了這樣的設想，國內主張人權高于主權，而國際或一國相對于他國而言則主張主權高于人權。否則的話，若是全世界都堅持人權高于主權，那么我們是不是可以為了人權事業的發展而聯合起來打擊美國呢？因為美國對黑人的不平等的待遇，即美國的種族歧視本身就是對人權的侵犯。當然這只是我個人很幼稚的想法。所以也正如我前面所說，對于任何問題的討論都是不能過于絕對的。

以上就是我對“人權高于主權”的簡單而粗略的看法。我們中國向來提倡以人為本、以和為貴，我們不也說，世界人民是一家嗎，我希望全世界都能正確看待人權和主權的關系，尊重人權，讓世界和諧發展。

第四篇：Wentworth Miller西雅圖人權戰線HRC演講

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：《人權、國家與文明》讀后感

《人權、國家與文明》讀后感

本學期的開設了《憲法學》的專業課，憲法學是以憲法為研究對象的一門學科，屬于法學的分支學科。憲法是國家的根本大法，適用于國家全體公民，國家內部政治力量的對比關系的變化對憲法的發展變化起著直接作用，國際關系也對憲法發展趨勢有所影響。所以學習憲法學對我們普通公民來說同樣有著重要的意義。在老師的推薦下，我在學習憲法學課程的同時閱讀了日本明治大學教授大沼保昭所著的《人權、國家與文明》。此書全稱是《人權、國家與文明：從普遍主義的人權到文明相容的人權觀》，書的內容包括動搖國際秩序的三個相克和文明相容方法的必要性、國際社會中的自然權思想、人權能超過主權嗎，不干涉內政原則與“普遍性價值”之間的相克等。雖然我學識粗淺，但無疑從這本書中獲益匪淺。同時我也漸漸領悟法學強調秩序與和諧、自由與權利、公平與正義。法學理念的創新，精神的卓越，能使民主更趨進步，亦促使社會更尊人權，從而使我們的國家更加強盛，人民更為幸福。

人權,這一美妙的字眼越來越多地被賦予了意識形態的色彩。西方大國利用人權來為其霸權政治作正當性辯解,發展中國家,為應對西方大國的人權攻勢,從實用主義出發提出了“主權高于人權”的觀點來與“人權高于主權”的觀點對抗。西文大國極力主張人權的普遍性,而發展中國家卻強調建立在文化相對主義基礎上的人權的特殊性。在當今世界上,“人權的神圣名義,無論其可能意味著什么,都能被人們用來維護或反對一個事物”。“人權似乎什么都是,又似乎什么都不是”。這本書針對歐美中心的人權主義，提出文明協商和文明相容的人權觀，并強調應該取代唯一正確的那種普遍主義人權概念，開放拓展人權討論的話語空間；作者同時敦促亞洲各國，尤其是中國，應該有力地介入“文明相容的人權觀”，打破歐美的中心指導作用。

人權這一概念，從洛克等人提出自然權利的概念發展到現在，幾番波折，現在已經成為了國際社會關注的焦點之一，人權越來越多的成為了一種政治斗爭的工具。不同的國家、政府、組織和個人都在談論著人權，但是他們口中的人權或者人權的標準和價值則是千人千面，人們總是出于自身的利益需要而從自身出發去談論人權。這種形式下人權的發展不是和諧的，而是對抗的；不是良性的，而是急功近利的。這種表面上的欣欣向榮背后，隱藏著的是人權的墮落。人權在其思想萌發以及發展的初期，并不具有普遍性，歐美國家目前所強調的人權固有的普遍性，不過是一種托詞罷了。但是這并不能否認人權的普遍性的價值。大沼保昭教授對人權發展的歷史，得出的結論是：“某種觀念只要具有作為理念的普遍化可能性，那么，即使它曾經是一種擁護受限定主體利益的意識形態，也依然具有超越這些主體的個別利益而發展成普遍性理念的歷史性活力”。人權的普遍性，包括主體的普遍性和概念本身的普遍化，在現代社會是得到承認的，而普遍的人權標準也是有其理論上的正當性的，那么，所謂的“普遍主義”與“相對主義”之爭就不應該成為東西方之間或者說發達國家與發展中國家之間人權對抗的沖突點。真正造成不同國家之間就人權問題形成對抗的原因主要是在于目前歐美中心主義的所謂的普遍人權標準，其實并不具有正統性。

大沼保昭所提出的“文明相容的人權觀”，就是對于達到一種真正具有正統性的普遍人權標準的途徑的探索。文明相容的過程，也可以逐步消除人權自身的對抗性特征。人權的理論源頭“自然權利”和“人的權利”誕生于個體與教會、王權等共同體的斗爭之中，因此人權也不免帶有一種對抗的意味。文明相容的途徑能夠有效的是現在一國主權之下，個人與國家之間的就人權事務的和諧共存。畢竟，不干涉原則在國際社會中是主流，而聯合國對于大規模侵害人權事件進行干涉只是例外，因此，人權的保障和發展主要還是要靠國家的推動。個人與國家的和諧關系，能夠使更多的發展中國家接受人權的概念，從而保證人權健康而持續的發展。另外，在文明相容的過程中，吸收不同文明的特點，將為人權的理論增加新的內涵，比如和諧權的提出就是儒教文明與人權相容的成果。文明相容與和諧人權是一種手段和目標的關系，通過一種文明相容的過程，最終達到人權標準形成過程的和諧，人權發展的和諧和人權歷史的和諧，這種和諧人權才是真正的普遍人權，能夠保持健康持續的發展。

從孔子的“大同世界”到柏拉圖的理想國，人類對于一種美好世界的追求，從未停止。從洛克的“自然權利”到《世界人權宣言》再到以7個聯合國核心人權公約為基準的國際人權保護體系，人權的普遍化為各個不同的文明提供了一條共同的達到理想世界的道路。人權對于個人，是到達一種由尊嚴的生活的手段，而對于國家，人權就應該是目的本身。為了達到這個目的，不論是“正義”還是“仁”，各種文明對于善的訴求都應該被吸收進人權的框架之內。這種文明相容的視角，為人權的發展和人權標準的制定實施帶來了一種新的途徑的同時，也為人權本身的評價帶來了一種新的標準，那就是和諧。文明相容的目標，就在于達成一種和諧的人權。以和諧包容多樣的文明，以和諧化解人權本身的對抗，以和諧消除發展中國家對于人權的疑慮，這樣的人權和人權標準，才能真正的維持我們對于基本人權、人格尊嚴和價值以及男女平等權利的信念；實現對于人人享有言論和信仰自由并免予恐懼和匱乏的世界能夠來臨的夢想；不辜負使子孫后代免予那些對人權無視和侮蔑的野蠻暴行的寄托，相信在一種和諧人權標準的評價和努力之下，人人都能過上有尊嚴的生活的目標終能實現。