试析受教育权理论发展综述中英文翻译

//.-.试析受教育权理论发展综述中英文翻译W.k.chemantherighttoeducationtheorydevelopmentinbothEnglishandChinesetranslation论文摘要现行宪法颁布以来，受教育权一直是理论研究的热点，受教育权的行使涉及到受教育权的概念、本质、法律关系等一系列问题，总结其理论发展脉络和存在的问题，有利于辨析澄清观点和完善制度规则，有利于受教育权纠纷的解决。Papersincethecurrentconstitutionpromulgated,therighttoeducationhasalwaysbeenthehotspotofthetheoryresearch,theexerciseoftherighttoeducationreferstotheconceptoftherighttoeducation,essence,legalrelationshipandaseriesofproblems,summedupthetheoreticaldevelopmentvenationandtheexistingproblems,andisconducivetodifferentiatetoclarifyideasandperfectthesystemofrules,isconducivetothesolutionofthedisputesovertherighttoeducation.论文关键词受教育权法律关系权利救济Paperkeywordseducationallegalrelationshiprightremedy现行宪法颁布以来，受教育权一直是理论界研究的热点，学者们以科学、实用的态度开展了受教育权的探讨，从不同角度阐述受教育权的概念、本质、法律关系等理论问题，学术上出现了许多理论创新和有代表性的作品，主要研究成果综述如下：Sincethecurrentconstitutionpromulgated,therighttoeducationhasbeenthehotspotintheoryresearch,scholarswithscientific,practicalattitudehascarriedoutthediscussionoftherighttoeducation,explainstheconceptoftherighttoeducationfromdifferentangles,essence,legalrelationshiptheoryissuessuchas,thereappearalotoftheoreticalinnovationandacademicrepresentativeworks,themainresearchresultsweresummarizedasfollows:一、受教育权理论的主要观点One,themainpointofthetheoryoftherighttoeducation由于现行《宪法》、《教育法》、《未成年人保护法》、《行政复议法》等条文中涉及的“受教育权”内涵，没有相应的解释和法律上的界定，学者们对受教育权的定义、本质、内容及相互关系等问题众说纷纭。Duetothecurrentconstitution,theeducationlaw,minorsprotectionlaw,theadministrativereconsiderationlawinvolvedintheprovisionof"educational"connotation,nocorrespondingexplanationandlegaldefinition,scholarsofeducationalproblemssuchasdefinition,essence,contentandtherelationshipbetweentheopinionsvary.（一）受教育权的定义(a)thedefinitionoftherighttoeducation关于什么是“受教育权”，学者们见仁见智，定义各不相同。有的从受教育的途径、场所以及学习内容来定义，有的从国家保障义务来定义，有的从促进人的发展角度来定义，有的结合人的发展和国家的保障义务来定义，如龚向和认为：“所谓受教育权，是指公民依法享有的要求国家积极提供均等的受教育条件和机会，通过学习来发展其个性、才智和身心能力，以获得平等的生存和发展机会的基本权利。”这些定义大多数是从宪法的角度，从国家作为义务的主要承担者的角度去概括，而忽略了公民受教育权的行使涉及的义务主体除国家之外还有教育机构、监护人和其他主体，这是一个缺陷，需要进一步完善。现实中形形色色的受教育权纠纷，有许多并非是受教育者和国家的争议，而是受教育者与学校、监护人、其他组织或个人的争议，按照我国学术界的主流定义方式，受教育权是公民向国家要求学习的机会和条件，那么这些纠纷就不能称之为受教育权纠纷，这显然难以自圆其说。Aboutwhatis"therighttoeducation",scholarshavedifferentopinions,differentdefinition.Someplacefrombythewayofeducation,andtodefinethelearningcontents,fromnationalsecurityobligationisdefined,somedefinedfromtheAngleofpromotingthedevelopmentofpeople,somecombinationofpeople'sdevelopmentandnationalsecurityobligationisdefined,suchasgongtoandthink:"therighttoeducation,referstothecitizensshallhavetherightrequirementsofcountriesactivelyprovideequaleducationconditionsandopportunities,bylearningtodeveloptheirpersonality,intelligenceandphysicalandmentalabilities,inordertoobtainthesurvivalanddevelopmentofanequalchanceoffundamentalrights."MostofthedefinitionsfromtheAngleoftheconstitution,fromtheviewofstateasthemainundertakerofobligationtosumup,whileignoringthecitizens'exerciseoftherighttoreceiveeducationinvolvinginadditiontotheobligationthecountryandeducationinstitutions,theguardianandothermainbody,isthisadefect,needtobefurtherperfected.Foravarietyofdisputesovertherighttoeducation,inrealitytherearealotofisnottheeducateesandcontroversyofthecountry,butbyeducatorsandschool,theguardian,otherorganizationorindividualdisputes,accordingtothedefinitionofthemainstreamofacademiccirclesinourcountry,therighttoeducationisacitizentothestaterequiresthelearningopportunitiesandconditions,thenthedisputescannotbecalledadisputeovertherighttoeducation,itisdifficulttojustify.（二）受教育权的本质(2)thenatureoftherighttoeducation受教育权的本质解决的是受教育权是一种什么样的权利，权利的实现对受教育者有何意义。日本学者对受教育权本质的认识经历了从政治权利的公民权说到生存权说再到学习权说三种学说的演变，这三种学说曾被我国学者多次援引，例如龚向和从人权理论的角度来观察受教育权本质学说的演变，提出受教育权本质的认识有四种学说：公民权说、生存权或社会权说、学习权说、发展权说。Thenatureoftherighttoeducationistosolvetherighttoeducationisakindofwhatkindofright,what'sthemeaningoftherealizationoftherightsofeducatees.Japanesescholarsunderstandingofthenatureoftherighttoeducationhasexperiencedfrompoliticalrightsofcitizenshipwhenitcomestolifeagaintotherighttolearntheevolutionofthetheoryofthree,thethreetheorieshasbeenscholarsquotedmanytimesinourcountry,suchasgongtoandfromtheAngleofhumanrightstheorytoobservetheevolutionofthenatureoftherighttoeducationtheory,putforwardtherighttoeducationoftheessenceofthefourkindsoftheories:civilrights,righttolife,orsocialrightssaid,learningright,therighttodevelopment.关于受教育权的本质，公民权说和生存权说遭到的质疑比较多，两种学说过多地从政治和经济的角度对受教育权加以阐释，忽视了人的丰富性和人的目的地位。目前较为流行的四种学说中的“发展权说”，实际上已被“学习权说”所吸收。20世纪80年代以后，学习权说被国际社会普遍接受。学习权包含了学习自由（主动学习）与受教育权（被动学习）。它强调了受教育者在教育过程中的主体地位，强调了主体在享受受教育权利时的主动性与自由性，远远超出了“接受教育”的含义，最接近受教育权的本质，但也不能以学习权的概念取代受教育权，因为受教育权是学习权中的一部分，即经他人协助下的学习权。Aboutthenatureoftherighttoeducation,citizenshipandtherighttolifebythequestionismore,twotheoriestoomuchontherighttoeducationfromtheperspectiveofpoliticalandeconomicinterpretation,ignorethepeople'srichnessandthepurposeoftheposition.Atpresentmorepopularofthefourtheoriesof"therighttodevelopment",infacthasbeenabsorbedby"learningright".Sincethe1980s,thestudysaidrightsisacceptedbytheinternationalcommunity.Learningincludestherightoffreelearning,activelearning,withtherighttoeducation(passivelearning).Itemphasizedtheeducatee'smainbodystatusintheprocessofeducation,emphasizestheinitiativeofsubjectwhileenjoyingtheeducationrightsandfreedom,farbeyondthemeaningof"education",themostclosetothenatureoftherighttoeducation,butalsocan'tinordertostudytheconceptoftherighttoreplacetherighttoeducation,becausetherighttoeducationispartofthelearningright,namely,bythehelpofotherstolearn.（三）受教育权法律关系(3)therighttoeducationlegalrelationship我国现行《宪法》第46条第1款规定：“中华人民共和国公民有受教育的权利和义务”。对于现行宪法这种规定，学者们仍然有所疑问，受教育到底是权利还是义务，受教育的这种所谓的权利与义务的一致性或双重性到底是怎样体现出来的？权利主体和义务主体指向的是什么？权利主体与义务主体是否同一？Ourcurrentconstitutionprescribedinparagraph1ofarticle46:"citizensofthePeople'sRepublicofChinatherightsandobligationsofeducation".Forthecurrentconstitution,scholarsstillhavedoubt,whethereducationisarightorobligation,theeducationoftherightsandobligationsoftheso-calledconsistencyordualismreflectedhow?Whatrightsandobligationssubjectto?Thesubjectsofrightsandobligationsarethesame?从受教育权的构成看，权利主体是具有中国国籍的人。义务主体是谁？是否同权利主体的范围一致？由于受教育权是一项权利构造较为复杂的权利，在公民受教育的过程中，除了国家提供教育机会和条件，学校、教师、父母等主体也会以不同的身份或形式参与进来，在教育上也享有特定的权利和义务。同时，受教育权对应的相关义务又包括消极的不侵犯公民受教育权的义务与积极保障公民受教育权的义务，消极义务与积极义务的承担主体是不一致的、不同一的。消极义务即不侵犯公民受教育权的主体具有广泛性，任何公民、社会团体、企事业单位、国家机关都不得侵犯公民受教育权的享有与行使。那么，受教育的积极义务的承担者是谁呢？根据宪法精神，国家是受教育积极义务的承担者。因此，受教育权的义务承担者，不仅包括国家，还包括教育机构、监护人和社会上的其他组织或个人。受教育权的权利客体，简单地说，就是教育，包括一切种类和一切级别的教育。Lookedfromthestructureoftherighttoeducation,therightsubjectisthepersonwhoshallhaveChinesenationality.Compulsorysubjectwhoisit?Whetheragreewiththescopeoftherightsubject?Becausetherighttoeducationisarightstructuremorecomplex,intheprocessofChinesecitizenstoreceiveeducation,exceptforcountriestoprovideeducationopportunitiesandconditions,schools,teachers,parents,etc.Thesubjectwillbeinadifferentformofidentityorinvolved,ontheeducationandenjoycertainrightsandobligations.Correspondingobligationsatthesametime,therighttoeducation,includingnegativenotinfringinguponthecitizenrighttoeducationofobligationandpositiveobligationtoguaranteecitizenstherighttoreceiveeducation,negativeobligationandpositiveobligationtobearthemainbodyisnotconsistent,differentone.Negativeobligationthatisnotthemainbodyofinfringementofcitizens'righttoeducationhasuniversality,anycitizens,socialorganizations,enterprisesandinstitutions,stateorgansarenotallowedtoinfringeuponcitizensenjoyandexercisetherighttoeducation.So,bythepositiveobligationofeducationwhoisconsidering?Accordingtothespiritoftheconstitution,thecountryisundertheobligationofeducationactively.Obligationtohitfromtherighttoeducation,therefore,notonlyincludingcountries,alsoincludingeducationinstitutions,theguardianandotherorganizationsorindividualsinthesociety.Righttoeducationoftherighttoobject,simply,iseducation,includingalltypesandalllevelsofeducation.在受教育权的法律关系中争论最多的是受教育权的内容，由于我国宪法没有明确受教育权的范围和界限。有学者认为主要包括三方面的内容，第一是学习的权利。第二是义务教育无偿化。第三是教育机会均等。龚向和按照时间顺序，分成开始阶段的“学习机会权”（包括升学机会权、教育选择权、学生身份权）、过程阶段的“学习条件权”（包括教育条件建设请求权、教育条件利用权、获得教育资助权）、结束阶段的“学习成功权”（包括公正评价权、获得学业、学位证书权），从现有的教育立法来看，受教育权主要包括三方面的内容，即免费义务教育、教育机会平等，以及选择教育的自由。但选择教育的自由在义务教育阶段，有选择私立学校的自由，不包括在公立学校之间进行选择的自由，在非义务教育阶段，包括选择是否接受教育的自由，选择不同类型教育（如职业教育或普通教育）的自由，以及选择哪一所学校的自由。总之，受教育权的内容由各国法律加以确定，同时，受国际人权法的约束，国际人权法规定的受教育权最低核心内容，需要所有缔约国承担并立即实现。作为国际人权法的缔约国，我国应参照国际人权法规定的受教育权核心内容，在立法中确定我国受教育权的范围和界限。Disputeinthelegalrelationshipofrighttoeducationisthecontentoftherighttoeducation,becauseourcountryconstitutionisnotclearlythescopeandboundariesoftherighttoeducation.Somescholarsthinkthatcontentmainlyincludesthreeaspects,firstistherightoflearning.Thesecondisthecompulsoryeducationforfree.Thethirdistheeducationequalityofopportunity.Gongtoandinaccordancewiththetimeorder,dividedintobeginningphaseofthe"rightoflearningopportunities(includingtherightofentranceopportunity,educationoption,rightofstudent),theprocessstageofright"to"learningconditions(includingeducationconditionsforconstruction,educationrights,gettheeducationfunding),endstageofthe"right"tolearningsuccess(includingtherightoffairevaluation,school,degreecertificate),fromthepointofviewoftheexistingeducationlegislation,thecontentoftherighttoeducationmainlyincludesthreeaspects,namely,freecompulsoryeducation,educationequalityofopportunity,aswellasthefreedomofchoiceofeducation.Butthefreedomofchoiceofeducationatcompulsoryeducationstage,thereisfreedomofchoiceofprivateschools,publicschoolsarenotincludedinbetweenthefreedomofchoice,inthestageofcompulsoryeducation,includingthefreedomtochoosewhetherornottoaccepteducation,choosedifferenttypesofeducation(suchasavocationaleducationorgeneraleducation)offreedom,andfreedomofchoiceofwhatschool.Inshort,thecontentoftherighttoeducationbynationallawtodetermine,atthesametime,boundbyinternationalhumanrightslaw,internationalhumanrightslawoftherighttoeducationminimumcorecontent,requiresallpartiestoundertakeandimplementimmediately.Asaninternationalhumanrightslawofthecontractingstates,ourcountryshouldrefertointernationalhumanrightslawrighttoeducationofthecorecontent,inthelegislationtodeterminethescopeandboundariesoftherighttoeducationinourcountry.（四）受教育权纠纷涉及的法律关系(4)therighttoeducationdisputesinvolvinglegalrelationship受教育权纠纷涉及的参加者包括受教育者、教育行政主体、学校、监护人以及其他社会组织和个人。其中，受教育者与教育行政主体发生纠纷，其法律关系属于较为纯粹的行政法律关系；受教育者与父母或其他监护人因教育问题发生纠纷，属于民事法律关系；受教育者与教育机构以外的其他社会组织或个人发生受教育权纠纷，基本属于民事主体之间的侵权纠纷，也可以归入民事法律关系。唯有受教育者与学校或其他教育机构发生的受教育权纠纷，其法律关系的定性可谓众说纷纭。法学界关于受教育者与学校的法律关系，大致有特别权力关系说、一般行政法律关系说、教育契约关系说、监护代理关系说和民事与行政关系兼有说五种学说，但前四种学说都无法涵盖所有教育层次和教育类型的受教育者，只有民事与行政关系兼有说在实务中被普遍采用。但这种理论本身也存在一定缺陷，如学校根据“学校规章”决定学生退学和开除等，属于大学自治性权力，由于没有国家法律的授权，相对方的权益就无法得到有效的救济。因此，有必要突破传统的“授权性行政主体”理论，引入“自治性行政主体”的概念。Educationaldisputesinvolvingparticipantsincludingtheeducatees,educationadministrativesubject,school,theguardianandothersocialorganizationsandindividuals.Adisputeamongthem,thepedagogueandeducationadministrativesubject,itslegalrelationsarerelativelypureadministrativelegalrelationship;Byeducatorsandparentsorotherguardiansofadisputeduetotheeducationproblem,belongstothecivillegalrelationship;Educatedandofthesocialorganizationsorindividualsotherthaneducationinstitutionsoccurreddisputesovertherighttoeducation,basicbelongstotortdisputesbetweencivilmainbody,canalsobeclassifiedascivillegalrelationship.Onlytheeducateewithschoolsorotherinstitutionsofeducationdisputesovertherighttoeducation,thelegalrelationshipofqualitativeisdebated.Legalscienceofeducateesandthelegalrelationsoftheschool,roughlysaidspecialpowerrelation,generaladministrativelegalrelationship,educationcontractrelationship,theguardianshipagencyrelationshipandcivilandadministrativerelationswithfivekindsoftheories,butthefirstfourtheoriescannotcoverallthelevelofeducationandeducationtypeoftheeducatees,onlysaysbothcivilandadministrativerelationiswidelyusedinpractice.Butthistheoryitselfalsohassomedefects,suchasschooldeterminedaccordingtotherules""schoolstudentsdropoutofschoolandfireandsoon,belongtotheuniversityautonomypower,withouttheauthorizationofnationallaw,ineachother'srightsandinterestscannotgeteffectiverelief.Therefore,itisnecessarytobreakthroughthetraditional"authorizedadministrativesubjecttheory,introducetheconceptof"autonomyofadministrativesubject".对于学校与学生就受教育权纠纷所涉及的法律关系，我国可以借鉴日本和我国台湾地区的做法，将“特别权力关系说”发展为“基础关系与管理关系说”。涉及基础关系的学生身份的取得、丧失及降级等决定，都属于可诉行政行为。其他如对学生的服装、作息时间、宿舍管理规定等都属于管理关系，不必遵循法律保留原则，属于不可诉的行政行为。受处分学生可以通过申诉途径谋求救济，如未获救济，可以依法提起行政复议及行政诉讼。Hastherighttoeducationforschoolsandstudentslegalrelationsinvolvedinthedispute,ourcountrycandrawlessonsfromthepracticeofJapanandTaiwanareainourcountry,the"specialpowerrelation"to"basicrelationshipandmanagement".Involvesthebasicrelationsoftheacquisition,lossanddegradationofstudentdecision,belongtoactionableadministrativeaction.Othersuchasclothing,workandresttimeforstudents,dormitorymanagementregulationsbelongtomanagerelationships,don'tneedtofollowtheprincipleoflawreserve,belongstoadministrativebehaviorisv.Disciplinedstudentsmayseekreliefthroughappealways,suchasdidnotgetarelief,canbringadministrativereconsiderationandadministrativelawsuitinaccordancewiththelaw.二、实践中和立法上需要进一步明确的问题Second,theproblemsneedtobefurtherdefinedonthepracticeandlegislation（一）“就近”“免试入学”的标准(a)"near"and"anexemptionentrance"standards义务教育阶段的就学纠纷，在现实中主要表现为适龄儿童就近入学、免试入学、监护人拒不送被监护人入学等方面的争议。Compulsoryeducationphaseoftheschooldispute,mainshowisinrealityschool-agechildrenentrance,anexemptiontothenearestentrance,refusedtosendguardianreadhiswardalectureonadmission,etc.根据《义务教育法》的精神，使儿童、少年就近入学，是地方各级人民政府的法定职责。但实际上，各县市政府编制的义务教育学校设置规划中，并没有中小学合理布局的具体标准，有时政府划分学区没有考虑居民实际居住状况，而过多的考虑行政区域的划分或学生户籍所在地等其他因素，出现了只隔一堵墙却不在一个学区不能就近入学的情况。还有一些偏远地区适龄儿童上学要翻山越岭，因太远太累孩子不愿上学还要责罚其父母的情况。要解决现实中存在的问题，除了制定学校设置和学区划分的具体标准外，还要转变观念，使政府在义务教育上履行职责。有一些地方就根据本地实际，制定了当地办学条件标准，如《河南省农村义务教育阶段学校办学条件基本标准（试行）》规定：“根据人口分布和人口出生率等综合因素，人口比较密集的平原地区，原则上每0.5万人左右设一所完全小学，每2-3万人设一所初中。”“本着就近入学的原则，平原地区小学服务半径一般不超过2公里（不含寄宿制学校）。”总之，只有制定就近入学的具体标准，人们才能判断政府设置学校是否合理，同时，也会减少由此产生的纠纷以及辍学现象的发生。Accordingtothespiritofthecompulsoryeducationlaw,childrenandadolescentsneighborhoodschool,isthelegalresponsibilityofthelocalpeople'sgovernmentsatvariouslevels.Butinfact,variouscountiescitycompulsoryeducationschoolsetupplan,nospecificstandard,thereasonablelayoutofprimaryandsecondaryschoolsaresometimesdividedgovernmentdistrictresidentsdidnottakeintoaccounttheactuallivingconditions,buttoomuchconsideringthedivisionofadministrativeregions,orotherfactorssuchasstudentcensusregisterseat,aseparatedonlyawall,butnotadistrictcan'tgotoschool.School-agechildrengotoschoolandsomeremoteareastonuristan,becausefartootiredchildrendon'twanttogotoschooltovisithisparents.Tosolvetheproblemsthatexistinthereality,inadditiontothespecificstandardsforschoolSettingsandschooldistrictdivision,butalsochangingideas,makethegovernmentperformtheirdutiesinthecompulsoryeducation.Someplaceaccordingtolocalactual,makethelocalstandardoperatingconditions,suchasthebasicstandardofhenanruralcompulso