The so-called right to life, simply put, is the "right to live" or "the right to security of life", which refers to the right of human life to be protected by the law from any illegal deprivation.
When it comes to the right to life, we can't help but relate to another related concept - the right to life. 1991, the State Council Information Office issued China's first white paper on human rights - "China's Human Rights Situation", which clearly stated: "The right to life is the first and foremost human right that the Chinese people have been fighting for a long time." As a result, the term "right to life" has attracted a great deal of attention from the people of China. Here, we cannot help but ask: What is the right to life? What is the relationship between the right to life and the right to life? In the world, the right to life has different meanings in different countries, at least the following three: (1) In Germany, Russia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria and other countries, the right to life is the right to life. (1) For example, Article 28 of the 1991 Bulgarian Constitution states: "Every person has the right to life. Violation of human life is punished as the most serious crime." (2) In Japan, the right to life is considered to be the right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living, and Article 25 of the Japanese Constitution, which states that "All citizens shall have the right to a healthy and cultured minimum standard of living," is considered to be an explicit provision on the right to life. "[1] (3) In our country, the State of Human Rights in China states that "Without the independence of the state, there is no guarantee for the lives of the people," and that "the struggle for the right to subsistence begins with the struggle for the right to national independence". "Although the independence of the state has enabled the lives of the Chinese people to be no longer subjected to the ravages of foreign invaders, it is also necessary to enable the people to enjoy the basic security of life on this basis before the question of the right to subsistence can be truly resolved", and that "when the problem of the people's subsistence has been basically solved, the question of the people's right to subsistence is also basically solved The problem of the people's right to subsistence will be basically solved when the problem of their food and clothing is basically solved. "It is easy to see from this that the "right to subsistence" referred to by our Government mainly means the right to national independence and the right of the people to basic livelihood security. If we look at the meaning of the "right to life" as stated by the Government, it is clear that the right to life is not the same thing as the right to life, and that there is a clear distinction between the two. Of course, there is also a close relationship between the two, it can be said that the right to life is a negative human rights, which emphasizes that life is not arbitrarily deprived of, the general attitude of the state as a form of inaction (only when life is threatened, the state to protect), while the right to life is a positive human rights, focusing on the state's protection of life, the state to take active measures to maintain life.
(B) the necessity of the right to life into the Constitution
Why the right to life must be written into the Constitution and should be the first to the Constitution? In the author's view, the reasons are at least the following:
First, the right to life into the constitution is the right to life itself is an important natural requirement. Life is the premise and foundation of all activities of citizens. Without life, there is nothing, and there is nothing more valuable than human life. The right to life is the origin and foundation of all human rights, without which all other rights are meaningless and cannot exist. There is no greater evil in the world than the unlawful infringement or deprivation of the right to life of others. It can be said that the right to life occupies a fundamental position in the system of civil rights and is a basic right, the first human right and the primary human right. Since the right to life is the first and foremost human right, the Constitution, as the fundamental law that recognizes and guarantees basic human rights, should first stipulate the right to life as a fundamental right of the citizens.
Second, the right to life into the constitution is to protect the citizens of China's realistic need for life. In China's real life, disregard for life, the phenomenon of infringement of life is still quite a lot. For example, China Youth Daily has reported: the morning of April 12, 2002, the morning exercise to return to the Gansu Provincial Conservatory of retired old lady Li Sufang in crossing the railroad was hit by a train. The Lanzhou "120" emergency center doctors rushed to the scene ready to rescue, but was two present at the Lanzhou Railway Public Security Office Station Public Security Police Station police blocked, said: "Railway Hospital ambulance immediately arrived, you do not move." As a result, there was a delay of nearly one hour, and the old lady died because she missed the best time for resuscitation. [2] This is a typical example of disregard for life. The jurisdiction of the "designated hospital" is higher than the right to life! Another example is that every year, thousands of people die in coal mines, transportation and other accidents in our country, most of which are responsible accidents, caused by the people concerned not performing their duties seriously and not putting the life safety of the citizens in the first place. The spread of atypical pneumonia epidemic in China in the first half of this year has a lot to do with the fundamental concept in the minds of some local and departmental leaders who do not attach importance to the right to life of the citizens, precisely because they disregarded the lives of the citizens, so they concealed and did not report, did not announce to the community in a timely manner and did not take decisive measures, resulting in the spread of the epidemic. Visible, the right to life into the constitution, so that the whole society to establish a sense of life, consciously protect life, is a pressing task.
Third, the right to life into the constitution is the need to improve our current constitution. Because of the extreme importance of the right to life, the constitutions of many countries in the world clearly stipulate that citizens have the right to life. For example, Article 5 of the U.S. Constitutional Amendment states, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Article 24 (right to life) of the Portuguese Constitution states: "I. Human life is inviolable. II. The death penalty will be carried out when necessary." Article 15 of the Constitution of Georgia states, "I. Life is an inviolable right of man, protected by law. II. The death penalty, as a special means of punishment, may be provided for by special laws until its complete abolition, to punish particularly serious crimes endangering human life. Only the Supreme Court of Georgia is authorized to use this means of punishment." The fact that our current Constitution does not provide for the right to life cannot but be a gap between our Constitution and the constitutions of the world. In order to adapt to the world constitutional trend and improve our current constitution, we should write the right to life into the constitution as soon as possible.
Fourth, the right to life into the constitution is also the requirements of the development of sectoral law. China's 1979 Criminal Law provides for intentional homicide and manslaughter and other violations of the right to life of criminal responsibility. 1986 General Principles of Civil Law, Article 98 provides that "citizens enjoy the right to life and health," and in Article 119 provides for infringement of the right to life of civil liability. The Criminal Law and the General Principles of Civil Law also provide for self-defense and emergency evacuation, two ways for citizens to protect their right to life, and the 1994 State Compensation Law also provides for the liability of State organs and their personnel for violating citizens' right to life and health. However, the Constitution, the fundamental law that serves as the basis and foundation of ordinary law, does not stipulate that citizens enjoy the right to life as a fundamental right, and it is clear that the Constitution has lagged behind sectoral laws, which has led to the Constitution not being able to effectively guide the legislation, law enforcement and administration of justice of sectoral laws on the issue of the right to life, and has already resulted in certain confusion, losses and regrets. For example, when the Criminal Law was revised in 1997, there was a great deal of debate over the issue of the death penalty, and in the end, the new Criminal Law provided for 68 death penalty offenses, which was less than before the revision but still ranked among the highest in the world, which was not in line with the trend of abolishing the death penalty around the world; the standard of state compensation for violations of the right to life provided for in the State Compensation Law was too low; and, in the practice of civil adjudication, the problem of civil compensation for violations of a citizen's right to life was also too small, and so on. In civil trial practice, there is also the problem of civil compensation fees for violations of citizens' right to life being too low, and so on. All of these require the Constitution to express its attitude towards the right to life of citizens as soon as possible.
Fifth, the right to life into the constitution or the implementation of international human rights conventions. Our government signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on October 5, 1998, and it is only a matter of time before the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) ratifies this international human rights covenant. The implementation of the ICCPR will be an obligation of our Government, and the Constitution is the basic means of implementing the ICHR. Article 6, paragraph 1, of the ICCPR clearly states: "Everyone has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." In order to meet the needs of signing and especially implementing the ICCPR in the future, we should proactively amend and improve the existing Constitution to clearly stipulate the right to life in the fundamental law.
(C) constitutional provisions of the right to life should pay attention to several issues
China in the amendment of the current Constitution, the right to life into the Constitution, should also pay attention to the correct handling of several issues related to the right to life:
1. "Right to life" into the Constitution. At present, some domestic scholars advocate the right to life into the constitution. If the constitution from the meaning of the right to life to provide for the right to life, we are in favor of; if the "right to life" is only as the right to national independence and the right to basic livelihood security of the two rights as a collective term and the right to life in the constitution of the citizens of the basic rights, we do not quite agree, because of course, these two rights are very important, but the right to national independence is the right of all citizens, including the right to life, the fundamental rights of the citizens. Including the right to life, including the protection of the fundamental rights of all citizens, it is not the fundamental rights of citizens themselves, does not belong to the scope of the fundamental rights of citizens, so the right to national independence is not appropriate in the Constitution of the fundamental rights of citizens in the chapter, and the citizens of the right to basic livelihood security can be an independent citizens of the fundamental rights of citizens to be stipulated, without the need for the use of the "right to life", which has multiple meanings and is the right to life. There is no need to use the concept of "right to life", which has multiple meanings and is easily misunderstood.
2. The question of the abolition of the death penalty. The death penalty is the penalty of life, which means depriving criminals of their right to life. It is precisely because countries around the world are attaching more and more importance to the right to life that more and more countries have abolished the death penalty. According to statistics, as of June 2001, the number of countries and regions that have abolished the death penalty, either de jure or de facto, has reached 109 countries and regions. [3] In view of traditional attitudes and other national conditions, it is clear that the conditions for the abolition of the death penalty are not yet ripe in our country. However, we must realize that the restriction or even abolition of the death penalty is, after all, a trend in the world today, and a requirement of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which our government has signed and acceded, and as we all know, the death penalty is the harshest punishment that deprives people of their lives, and a person's death cannot be resurrected, so our country should restrict the application of the death penalty as much as possible in the future, and we have to amend the current Constitution to stipulate the right of citizens to life at the same time to restrict the issue of the death penalty together. We need to amend the current Constitution to provide for the right to life of citizens, and at the same time to provide for the restriction of the death penalty. The author proposes to draw on the constitutional experience of countries around the world and the relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Constitution of China explicitly provides that: "The Chinese people *** and the State citizens of the right to life shall be inviolable. The State protects the right to life of citizens. The unlawful deprivation of a citizen's life is prohibited. The death penalty can only be prescribed by law for the punishment of intentional and results in crimes against life or other extremely serious consequences."
3. The question of abortion. When does human life begin to count and does a fetus have a right to life? Related to this is the question of the legality of abortion. If it is recognized that the fetus has the right to life, then abortion is an infringement of the right to life of the fetus. The legality of abortion has been a controversial issue in countries around the world and in the international community because of its moral, religious, health, political and legal implications. In some countries, it is recognized that the foetus has the right to life and that abortion is a crime. The American Convention on Human Rights also stipulates that the right to life "is a right that should generally be protected by law from the time of conception". The high population pressure in our country has necessitated the introduction of family planning, and at present the life of a citizen is counted from birth, and abortion is permitted by law. Whether or not abortion will be subject to certain restrictions in the future, such as recognizing the right to life of a foetus that is five months old or older and has already shown strong signs of life and not allowing abortion as a matter of principle, is a matter for further study. In practice, the exemption of pregnant women from the death penalty in our criminal law is mainly based on humanitarian considerations, but also on the life of the foetus. We should provide for the right to life of citizens in the Constitution at the same time, the related abortion and family planning and other issues to be considered together, in the sectoral law to provide.
4. The issue of euthanasia. Since citizens have the right to life, so do citizens have the right to give up their lives, whether they have the right to choose "euthanasia"? Euthanasia is divided into negative euthanasia and positive euthanasia. Negative euthanasia refers to the cessation of the use of modern medical equipment and means of sustaining the life of a patient, allowing the patient to die on his or her own; positive euthanasia refers to the so-called painless way in which medical personnel, through the injection of toxic agents and other so-called painless methods, help dying patients who are suffering from incurable illnesses and in extreme pain, and who wish to die to end their lives in advance. The issue of euthanasia has been the subject of much debate in the world, with some in favor of it and others opposed to it; in 1976 the state of California in the United States enacted a negative euthanasia law; in May 1996 the Parliament of the Northern Territory of Australia passed a positive euthanasia law, the Rights of the Dying Patient Act, but six months after it was implemented, it was repealed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. On April 10, 2001, the upper house of the Dutch parliament passed a "euthanasia" bill with 46 votes in favor and 28 votes against, making the Netherlands the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia. The author believes that we should be careful about the issue of euthanasia, our Constitution in the provision of the right to life of citizens at the same time, can authorize the legislative branch of the euthanasia issue of special legislation.