【英文题名】 The Adequate Standards of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living
【作者】 郑智航;
【导师】 姚建宗;
【学位授予单位】 吉林大学;
【学科专业名称】 法学理论
【学位年度】 2007
【论文级别】 硕士
【关键词】 适当生活水准权; 人权; 适当标准;

适当生活水准权的适当标准之确定

目录
引言............................................................................................................1
一、适当生活水准权在人权中的基础地位....................................................3
二、适当生活水准权既有适当标准的责难....................................................5
（一）适当生活水准权既有适当标准之展现.........................................5
（二）适当生活水准权既有标准存在的问题.........................................7
三、适当生活水准权适当标准可行性的证明..............................................12
（一）人权普遍性的追问.......................................................................12
（二）最低限度标准观念的确立...........................................................15
（三）最低限度标准共识的达成...........................................................17
四、适当生活水准权适当标准之确定..........................................................21
（一）适当标准确定的视角转换...........................................................21
（二）适当标准的否定性确定...............................................................23
（三）适当生活水准权的具体适当标准...............................................26
结论..........................................................................................................29
注释..........................................................................................................30
参考文献..........................................................................................................37
论文摘要（中文）
论文摘要（英文）
后记

论文摘要
适当生活水准权是一项国际性的人权，它存在于《世界人权宣言》、
《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》以及《儿童权利公约》等国际性法律
文件中。健康权、食物权、住房权、照顾权等权利形态都是适当生活水准
权的具体制度表达形式。因此，这一权利直接关乎到我们每个人的日常生
活。首先，适当生活水准权所要解决的是人们最为基本的生活日常需要的
满足问题。它关涉到人的衣食住，这些是人赖于存在的物质性基础。其次，
适当生活水准权关注的是弱势群体的扶助与保护，意在谋求社会正义和平
等。它所强调的是国家以值得信赖的形象承担尽其资源能力以适当方式实
现该类权利的渐进义务。最后，适当生活水准权是整个《经济、社会和文
化权利国际公约》的出发点与归属。因此，适当生活水准权在人权这一总
体性框架中具有基础性的地位。
然而，就目前的国际有关适当生活水准权的有关法律性文件以及具体
的操作而言，都存在这样一个问题，亦即适当的标准过高。这一标准对于
绝大多数发展中国家而言在短期内是无法达致的。就其实质而言，既有适
当生活水准权体现了自由主义民主工业社会的价值和制度，其含蓄地号召
世界上所有的国家都变成自由主义民主工业社会，要求世界处于相对落后
的国家必须努力采取“国内、国际的渐进措施”朝向西方自由民主工业社
会这一目标发展。这也就意味着发达国家在事实上利用适当生活准权对发
展中国家形成了一种支配。
基于上述的前提性认识，本文不得不在理论上证明适当生活水准权的
合法性问题。这也构成了探寻适当生活水准权的适当标准的逻辑前提。为
了说明这个问题，本文分以下三个步骤来完成：其一、与适当生活水准权
相关的国际性法律条文所承载的具有普遍性或“可通约性”的价值和意义
则至少包含着人对于自己认为较好生活状况本身的向往，而实际获致的外
部评价是无甚意义的。或者说，对于自己较好生活状况本身的向往这一前
提是具有普遍性的。至于各国选取实现这一普遍性的途径、方式与制度选
择则是由各国根据其自身来作出规定。其二、适当生活水准权的适当标准
是一个最低标准，而绝非是最高标准。其三、笔者采用了罗尔斯的“重叠
共识”理论，并在一定程度上修正了该理论，从而进一步论证适当生活水
准权的最低标准在国际社会中能够达致这一问题。
通过上文的分析，笔者认为适当生活水准权的适当标准在国际人权法
的层面上是无法被量化的。换言之，各国在适当生活水准权的适当标准这
一问题上达成共识的不应当是具体的适当标准，而应当是对于具有抽象意
义的适当本身达成的共识，而应当是对于如何确定适当的原则达成的共
识，而应当是对于什么样的生活是人所不能容忍的达成的共识。然而，我
们欲对异国的人权状况与人权发展程度有一个真正的认识，就不得不将自
己也作为是其观察与研究对象的客体。或者说，我们对于对方的人权状况
与发展程度确实的理解的前提是不将作为观察者与研究者的我们与作为
研究对象的异国人权状况与人权发展程度严格的两分，而是要求作为观察
者与研究者的我们作为一个当局者参与到异国人的具体生活中，从而形成
观察者、研究者与研究对象的双向互动。从事国际人权法的研究者与从事
国际人权法方面的实践者只有真实地理解异国人的现实的真实生活需要，
才有可能真正地理解异国人的现实生活中发生的有关人权的现象，并在此
基础上给予具有说服力的解释。与此同时，研究者与实践者在走进异国人
的现实的真实生活的过程中为了更好理解有关人权的现象，不得不剔除头
脑中固有的某些偏见。因此，异国人的现实的现实生活就成为了研究者与
研究对象互动的界面。在此基础上，提出了一些否定性的标准。这些否定
性的标准包括：不得违背人的基本的生活方式或生活习惯；不得违背人的尊
严；不得违背正常人的理解力；不得违背社会的整体存在背景等。本文否定
性地考虑适当生活水准权的适当标准并确立一些确定适当标准的否定性原则。
但是，此时本文不得不面对这样一个问题，即如果完全不考虑在一个国家内
部这个“最低生活水准权”的可行性标准还是欠妥的，因为没有这样一个可
行性的标准，该国公民就没有机会和可能性通过法律即司法途径来获致保障。
因此，笔者以中国城镇住房权为例提出一些具有操作性的标准。

Abstract
The right to an adequate standard of living,which exists in the
international legal document such as“the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights”、“the International Pledge of Economical、Social and Culture Right”
as well as“Convention on the Rights of Children”,is an international human
rights.The rights of health、food、housing and attendance are all the systematic
expressions of the right to an adequate standard of living.Therefore,the right
is directly related to our daily life.First of all,it solves the problem of
satisfaction of daily life needs,which is the most basic to people.It also
concerns people′s clothing、food and housing,on which people rely to exist.
Second,it concerns about the assistance and protection of the weak,intending
to seek social justice and equality.What it emphasizes is that the country
undertakes the gradual duty to realize those rights in the scope of its resource
ability by proper means and with a trustworthy image.Last,the right to an
adequate standard of living is the starting point and ascription of the entire
International Pledge of Economic and Culture Right.Thus,it has the
foundational status in the overall frame of human rights.
However,as far as the present international related legal document and its
operation concerned,there is a common problem that the standard of
suitability is excessively high.For most developing countries,they are unable
to achieve the goal in short term.Speaking of its essence,the existed right to
an adequate standard of living manifests the value and system of liberalism′s
and democratic industrial society.It implicitly summoned all the countries in
the world to turn into industrial societies of liberalism and democracy,
requiring the relative backward countries to develop facing the goal by
taking“domestic、international gradual measure”.This means that the developed
country factually get the control over the developing by using the right to an
adequate standard of living.
Based on the above premise understanding,I cannot but prove the
validity of the right to an adequate standard of living in theory,which also
constitutes the logic premise of inquiry into the suitable standard.In order to
explain this question,I take following three steps:First,the value and
significance,which has university or“commensuration”and exists in
international legal document related to the right to an adequate standard of
living,at least contains people′s looking forward to good living condition they
think,whereas actual exterior appraise is of no significance.In other words,
the premise of yearning for good living condition they think is universal.As to
the way and the system chosen,it is in each country′s own stipulation.Second,
the standard is not a highest one but a lowest one.Third,I take up Rawls’
“overlap mutual recognition”theory to prove that the lowest standard can
attain unanimity in the international society.
Through preceding analysis,I myself think the adequate standard of the
right to an adequate standard of living cannot be quantified at the level of
international human right law.In other words,the mutual recognition various
countries achieve should not be concrete suitable standard,but must be one
about abstract suitability itself;one about the principle to determine suitability;
one about what is beyond human′s tolerance. However,we have to regard
ourselves as the object of observation and research in order to have a real
understanding of foreign country′s human rights condition and degree of
development.Or,we should not strictly distinguish we viewers and
researchers from the human condition and degree of development as research
object, but attend foreigners′daily life as apart, then to form the bidirectional
interaction between the viewers and the object.This is a premise for real
understanding of the other side′s human rights condition and degree of
development.Only through real understanding of foreigners′real life
necessities,researchers and practitioners who are engaged in international
human rights are able to really understand the human rights related
phenomenon occurs in foreigners′life,then to make some persuasive
explanation.At the same time,when enter into foreigners′real life,researchers
and practitioners have to get rid of inherent prejudice in brain in order to have
a better understanding of the phenomenon related to human rights.Therefore,
the foreigners′real life becomes the interaction platform between the
researchers and the object.I propose some denial standard on this base.It is as
following:no violation of basic human life style and customs;no violation of
human′s dignity;no violation of a person′s normal comprehension faculty;no
violation of society′s whole existence background and so on.
I consider the suitable standard of the right to an adequate standard of
living negatively and establish some negative principles to determine suitable
standard.But I have to face this kind of question that it is improper if we
completely don′t consider the feasibility of the“the right to lowest standard of
living”inside a country.Because citizen in this country don′t have the
opportunity and possibility to obtain protection through law（that is the judicial
way）without such a feasibility standard.Thus,take the right to housing in
Chinese cities and town for example,I put forward some practical standard in
the text.