On the Human Rights Jurisprudence of “Free and Well-rounded Development of People”

LIU Zhiqiang （Institute for Human Rights， Guangzhou University）

HE Chen （Institute for Human Rights， Guangzhou University）

Abstract： The concept of “free and well-rounded development of people” can be deconstructed into three interrelated dimensions： “the existence of people”， “the happi‐ness of people” and “the prosperity of people”. From this framework， three corre‐sponding principles of human rights jurisprudence—moral， normative， and factual principles—can be extracted， thus forming a “trinitarian” logical structure in academic theory. The moral principle that underscores the foundational and priority role of the existence of people in the concept of “free and well-rounded development of people”provides both the moral basis and the rational justification for the norms of human rights law， and can be regarded as a fundamental “meta-theory”. As a moral principle，“the existence of people” consists of humans’ natural， social， and communicative attri‐butes. It covers the intrinsic connections among individuals， communities and multiple subjects， with the paradigm of communicative rationality—predicated on equality and dialogue—providing the possibility for “free and well-rounded development of people”. Normative principle is primarily concerned with the promotion of the happi‐ness of people， placing a significant emphasis on human rights that are recognized and safeguarded through legal frameworks and the rule of law. It critically examines the current legal order and the corresponding institutional mechanisms that support it. As a normative principle， “the happiness of people” consists of objective norms， institu‐tional norms， and legal norms. In this context， the “free and well-rounded develop‐ment of people” establishes the legitimacy of the right to happiness through the stan‐dardization of human rights and the humanization of legal norms. Factual principle corresponds to actual human rights and refers to the actual state of human rights at a particular stage and within a specific region. It emphasizes human rights that can be realized， enjoyed， and exercised. As a factual principle， “the prosperity of people” is understood to encompass freedom and comprehensiveness as its fundamental ele‐ments， with equal distribution and systematic cooperation as its formal elements. The“free and well-rounded development of people” is measured through the interaction of core values， value consensus， and value experience. Integrating the three principles outlined above， a hierarchical yet progressive interactive relationship emerges， reflect‐ing the continuous evolution from moral human rights to normative human rights， and subsequently to factual human rights. Moral principle forms the foundation of both normative and factual principles， embodying the fundamental needs inherent to human beings. Normative principle serves as an intermediary， linking moral and factual prin‐ciples by providing realistic institutions and governance guarantees for moral prin‐ciple， while also enriching the interpretative framework of factual principle. Factual principle， in turn， represents the external manifestation and realization of both moral and normative principles， expanding the practical implications of moral principle and clarifying the direction of normative principle. The three-fold principles of human rights jurisprudence ultimately aim to realize the “free and well-rounded development of people”， marking a new starting point in the history of human civilization.

KEYWORDS： “free and well-rounded development of people”； the contemporary Chinese outlook on human rights； the Chinese path to modernization； human rights jurisprudence

Justification for the Distribution of Tax Burdens among Natural Persons from the Human Rights Perspective

MA Yixuan （Law School， Renmin University of China）

Abstract： Jurisprudence and political philosophy both address the issue of justice in the distribution of tax burdens among natural persons. From the human rights perspec‐tive， justice in the distribution of tax burdens is reflected in the protection of the right to subsistence and the right to property. The theory of the right to subsistence empha‐sizes safeguarding the basic needs of taxpayers and their families， advocating for tax legislation that establishes tax exemption thresholds to prevent taxpayers from falling into hardship due to excessive tax burdens. The protection of property rights is fre‐quently cited as a counterargument to heavy taxation， with high tax burdens often being perceived as “punitive” or “exploitative”. However， this view is based on a flawed assumption： while market allocation is often regarded as “presumed innocent”， the redistribution of tax burdens is viewed as “presumed guilty”—an undue interfer‐ence in the market order. This perspective overlooks the reality that the market alone cannot ensure a just distribution. In fact， the redistribution of tax burdens is not only necessary but also morally justified. Within the framework of distributive justice theory， economic equality and economic entitlement provide dual justifications for the equitable distribution of tax burdens among natural persons. The theory of economic equality argues that economically disadvantaged groups should receive priority in the distribution of wealth and tax burdens at the moral level. This principle represents a central tenet across various equality theories. In contrast to the theory of the right to subsistence， which focuses narrowly on basic survival， economic equality theory is more comprehensive and adaptable， allowing for flexible support for economically dis‐advantaged groups in response to shifting socio-economic conditions. However， a limi‐tation of this theory lies in its difficulty in fully justifying the rationale behind eco‐nomically advantaged groups bearing a disproportionate tax burden. Therefore， the theory of economic entitlement is introduced as the second justification for the just dis‐tribution of tax burdens among natural persons.The theory of economic entitlement is primarily concerned with the issue of tax justice for economically advantaged groups， advocating that after-tax wealth should correspond to individual efforts and contribu‐tions. On one hand， a just distribution system must recognize that the wealth individu‐als are entitled to be based on their personal efforts and contributions. On the other hand， because the market mechanism may result in wealth distribution that does not align with individual efforts and contributions， the tax system plays a “corrective”role， ensuring the realization of distributive justice. From the human rights perspec‐tive， the theory of economic entitlement challenges the notion that the market is the sole determinant of individual dignity， emphasizing that the law must safeguard indi‐vidual dignity throughout the process of wealth distribution.The ability-to-pay prin‐ciple is embedded in the aforementioned rationale for justice in the distribution of tax burdens， which contrasts with domestic tax law approaches that treat it merely as a“preferential tool”. The justice of economically disadvantaged groups paying lower taxes， and economically advantaged groups paying higher taxes， can be argued and jus‐tified through the frameworks of economic equality and economic entitlement respec‐tively. The integration of these two theories leads to the proposition that “the level of wealth determines the level of tax burden”. If the ability-to-pay principle is abandoned in favor of alternative principles， the tax justice envisioned by economic equality and economic entitlement will be undermined. This underscores the centrality of the abil‐ity-to-pay principle in the establishment of a just system for the distribution of tax bur‐dens among natural persons.

KEYWORDS： justice in the distribution of tax burdens； the right to subsistence； the right to property； economic equality； economic entitlement； ability-to-pay principle

“Double Standards” in U. S. Human Rights Diplomacy： An Examination of Human Rights Policies under the Carter and Reagan Administrations

ZHAO Jianzhou （School of Law， Nanjing Normal University）

Abstract： “Double standards”， defined as the subjective or politicized evaluation， judgment， and enforcement of legal standards and norms， constitutes a significant topic of special attention and critical study in the realm of U.S. diplomacy. The ideal blueprint proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—a “common standard” of human rights for the international community—was inevitably subjected to the impact and disruption of “double standards” under the influence of the ensuing Cold War. From the perspective of the historical continuity of colonialism and hege‐mony， the issue of “double standards” in contemporary U.S. human rights diplomacy is closely intertwined with its fluctuations and shifts in human rights policies during the Cold War era.The Carter Administration， as the first to institutionalize “human rights diplomacy”， demonstrated a greater respect for the plurality of human rights sub‐jects， generations， and developmental modes. It sought to uphold a consistent human rights stance that rejected differential treatment. However， constrained by the political realities of the Cold War， national interests， and ideological limitations， the Carter Administration fell short of genuinely implementing the concept of human rights plu‐ralism. Its policy practices involved questionable trade-offs that undermined its stated principles. While the administration contributed positively to the dissemination of human rights ideas and alleviated suffering in certain regions， it ultimately failed to consistently oppose the practice of “double standards”， leaving its broader objectives unrealized.The Reagan Administration adopted a conservative stance on human rights diplomacy， explicitly employing “double standards” as both a justification and a tool to advance national security and strategic interests. This approach gave rise to a human rights narrative rooted in power struggles and realpolitik. In its human rights policies toward Latin American countries， the Reagan Administration openly established ideo‐logical boundaries， distinguishing between the socialist Nicaraguan regime and U.S.-aligned right-wing authoritarian or autocratic regimes. It dismissed the human rights progress of left-wing states， adhering instead to neoconservative and neoliberal politi‐cal and economic human rights standards. Furthermore， by “justifying” and reshaping the internal systems of its right-wing allies， the administration sought to consolidate Cold War ideological frontiers while obscuring the human rights responsibilities asso‐ciated with U.S. political and economic interventions. This series of policies under‐scores the politically motivated， amoral， and dehumanizing dimensions of “double standards” in Reagan-era diplomacy.On the one hand， the failure of the Carter Admin‐istration’s human rights policy， coupled with the rise of the Reagan Administration’s adoption of “double standards”， reveals the inherent flaws within U.S. human rights diplomacy. Expansive features such as domination over human rights standards， com‐mand of discourse power， manipulation of international systems and delegitimization of rivals persist in the ideological lineage of U.S. diplomacy. On the other hand， it is essential to conduct a thorough examination of the dualistic impact of American ideal‐ism and realism on diplomatic decision-making. This includes analyzing the intercon‐nectedness of the inevitability and historical contingency of the “double standard”institution on the basis of objective historical evidence， and exploring the potential role of international human rights theories and systems in guiding and disciplining the diplomacy of great powers. Such an inquiry features the contemporary value of histori‐cal reflections on the “double standard”.

KEYWORDS： U.S. human rights diplomacy； Reagan Administration； Carter Admin‐istration； double standards； dual determinism

The Evolution and Characteristics of ASEAN’s Human Rights Stance and Discourse

HE Hanxu （Human Rights Institute， Southwest University of Political Science and Law）

Abstract： “Human rights” were not an initial priority for ASEAN， and the Bangkok Declaration， which marked the establishment of the organization， made no mention of human rights. However， following the Cold War， ASEAN began to engage in discus‐sions about human rights. By 1993， “human rights” were formally incorporated into ASEAN’s official discourse， signaling an intent to establish a corresponding human rights institution. In practice， ASEAN’s human rights stance and discourse have evolved through a process of “avoidance”， “debate”， and ultimately “acceptance”， reflecting the complex interplay of international dynamics， regional development， and the diverse political realities of Southeast Asian nations.During the strategic avoidance phase （1967-1992）， ASEAN countries， having recently emerged from the constraints of colonialism， prioritized nation-building over human rights. At this stage， the region faced more immediate and pressing concerns， such as completing the process of“decolonization”， addressing domestic ethnic relations， maintaining territorial sover‐eignty， and ensuring political stability—all of which were integral to national security and development. Consequently， human rights did not emerge as a priority for ASEAN during this period.In the debate and resistance phase （1993-1997）， the conclusion of the Cold War and internal political changes within ASEAN countries led to human rights becoming a part of ASEAN’s official discourse， driven by both internal and external pressures. However， the adaptation of Western human rights norms to the ASEAN context proved challenging， leading to a “great debate” on human rights. This debate centered on three key issues： first， criticisms of the hypocrisy inherent in West‐ern idea of human rights； second， the perception that Western liberal ideology domi‐nated human rights discussions， reflecting Western moral imperialism and failing to account for the cultural traditions of Southeast Asia； and third， the view that the West‐ern prioritization of civil and political rights over social， economic， and developmental rights was impractical for ASEAN. Despite these debates and resistance to Western human rights norms， ASEAN’s response did not entail a wholesale rejection of the human rights concept itself. Rather， it represented a desire to prevent the West from using human rights issues as a means of interfering in ASEAN’s domestic affairs. After 1998， ASEAN began to accept and internalize the concept of “human rights”. This shift not only led to the formal acceptance of human rights at the official level but also prompted the integration of human rights into the region’s institutional frame‐work. This process culminated in the establishment of a dedicated human rights body. In 2009， ASEAN created the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights （AICHR）， and in 2012， the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration was adopted， further institutionalizing the region’s commitment to human rights.The evolution of ASEAN’s human rights stance and discourse can be attributed to several key factors. First， the globalization of human rights created an international environment condu‐cive to changes of ASEAN’s human rights stance and discourse. Second， the demo‐cratic transitions occurring in Southeast Asian countries provided an opportunity for ASEAN to engage more deeply with human rights issues. Third， advocacy from think tank institutions played a crucial role in promoting the integration of human rights into ASEAN’s policy agenda. Fourth， the regional financial crisis prompted ASEAN to reassess its approach to regional cooperation. Under the combined influence of human rights globalization， the democratic shifts in Southeast Asia， advocacy by think tank institutions， and the financial crisis， ASEAN countries’ focus on human rights issues significantly increased， driving the evolution of the region’s human rights stance and discourse. Furthermore， the communication， exchange， and discussion of human rights within ASEAN and its civil societies have further reinforced the region’s understand‐ing and perception of human rights.Based on its unique context and local practices， ASEAN has developed its human rights stance and discourse centered around several key principles： “respecting universality while emphasizing particularity”， “sovereignty over human rights”， “depoliticization and demilitarization”， “the unity of rights and obligations”， and “the primacy of the rights to survival and development”. These prin‐ciples have collectively fostered a distinct regional identity for Southeast Asia， articu‐lating a human rights perspective that diverges from the Western-centric notion of uni‐versal human rights. This approach underscores ASEAN’s local stance on human rights， emphasizing its particular values and priorities.

KEYWORDS： ASEAN； human rights； human rights stance and discourse

On Eliminating the “Stigma of Criminality”： The German Criminal Record System from the Perspective of Fundamental Rights

Christine Morgenstern （Faculty of Law， Ruhr University Bochum， Germany）

Translated by ZENG Cong （School of Criminal Justice， China University of Political Science and Law）

Abstract： The “Stigma of Criminality” refers to the burdens and stigma arising from guilty verdicts， often manifested through criminal records. Although criminal records do not constitute a judgment or sanction within the state’s penal system， they remain an inseparable aspect of the punitive effects imposed by the state. The Act on the Cen‐tral Criminal Register in Germany restricts access to criminal records， primarily for use within the criminal justice system and certain administrative procedures； private individuals are generally not entitled to full access. Criminal records serve various functions， aiding the judiciary in assessing offenders’ risks， helping public administra‐tive bodies safeguard national reputations， and assisting private enterprises in mitigat‐ing operational risks. However， the “Stigma of Criminality” directly influences judi‐cial discretion in sentencing and significantly impedes offenders’ rights to employ‐ment. From a criminological perspective， such burdens hinder the reintegration of indi‐viduals with prior convictions into society. The principle of responsibility， rooted in the protection of human dignity and personal autonomy， mandates safeguarding the integ‐rity of convicted individuals’ citizenship. Citizens’ rights should only be curtailed to the extent necessary for sanctions， and the right to reintegration constitutes a vital com‐ponent of constitutional rights protection. The legitimacy of criminal record systems lacks justification on preventive grounds， as empirical studies indicate that predictions based solely on prior convictions are often unconvincing. Viewing the deletion of crimi‐nal records as “erasing the stigma of criminality” does not necessarily lead to improved crime prevention. A more comprehensive discourse should focus on restoring rights and reintegration， informed by Germany’s Act on the Central Criminal Register and legal theory， which emphasizes restoring offenders’ social status and quality of life post-sentencing. Recognizing criminal records as significant factors in judicial proceed‐ings and acknowledging their preventive functions， discretion should be afforded to presiding judges to determine the entry of guilty verdicts into criminal records. Further‐more， restrictions on access to criminal records for private enterprises and public administrative bodies are essential to protect the fundamental rights of offenders.

KEYWORDS： “Stigma of Criminality”； collateral consequences； criminal records； reintegration； fundamental rights

On Labor Indicators of the World Bank’s B-READY Project

HU Dawu （School of Economic Law， Southwest University of Political Science and Law）

HUANG Yanbo （Human Rights Institute， Southwest University of Political Science and Law）

Abstract： The World Bank’s business environment assessment is among the most influential international initiatives. The B-READY project （2023）， which modifies the previous Doing Business （DB） project， sets labor indicators as scoring criteria， align‐ing them with numerous international labor standards. It emphasizes the establishment of comprehensive labor laws and regulations， highlighting the need for labor legisla‐tion to balance the rights and obligations of workers and employers. However， its fun‐damental philosophy and overall approach have not undergone significant change. The project’s value orientation remains concentrated on promoting private sector develop‐ment， prioritizing effective labor supply to support corporate production while relegat‐ing the protection of workers’ rights to a secondary position. Under this orientation， the labor indicators established by the B-READY project will likely guide countries in policy and legal formulation toward a greater focus on safeguarding private sector development， thus diminishing attention to protecting workers’ rights. The B-READY project presents three significant issues in establishing labor indicators： firstly， irratio‐nality， as some indicators excessively favor corporate interests， neglecting adequate protection for workers； secondly， unilateralism， wherein some indicators promote spe‐cific systems without considering the actual national context； and thirdly， incomplete‐ness， as certain indicators lack assessments of core elements of these systems and focus solely on system construction itself. To address these issues， the B-READY proj‐ect ought to shift its evaluative stance to make labor rights protection the core value of its indicators， promote comprehensive alignment of the labor indicator system with international labor standards， enhance the depth of indicator assessments， establish dif‐ferentiated evaluation methodologies based on industry classification， and incorporate labor as an evaluation subject. This would lead to a more scientifically grounded labor indicator assessment methodology， thereby constructing a labor assessment indicator system centered on human rights protection. In addressing the B-READY project， China should fully recognize the limitations of its evaluations， approach the assess‐ment results with caution， and adhere to a labor legislative philosophy centered on human rights protection. This entails effectively integrating the reasonable aspects of labor indicators to enhance the rationality of labor rights and obligations in China’s legislation. Additionally， China should actively participate in the global business envi‐ronment establishment， strengthen dialogue with the World Bank， and advocate for the incorporation of its experiences in legislative practices that prioritize labor human rights protection into the World Bank’s labor assessment indicators， thereby promot‐ing a shift in the overall value of labor indicators in the B-READY project.

KEYWORDS： World Bank； B-READY； labor； human rights； rights and obligations

Smart Healthcare Models and Protection of Privacy Information for the Elderly

SU Dan （School of Law， Zhejiang University of Technology）

Abstract： With the aging population becoming an increasingly pressing issue， smart healthcare models for the elderly have emerged as a crucial solution to the challenges posed by this demographic shift. However， the development of these models has also introduced new challenges in protecting the privacy information of the elderly. In the transformative paradigm of smart healthcare for the elderly， the home environment has shifted from a “traditional home” to an “intelligent environment，” with seniors transi‐tioning from “autonomous individuals” to data-driven “digitally mediated entities.”Familial relationships traditionally characterized by “filial piety” are gradually being replaced by complex “human-technology interactions.” In this context， privacy risks are becoming increasingly prominent， such as continuous monitoring that places elderly individuals under perpetual observation， potential breaches of confidentiality by elderly care service providers， and inadvertent information disclosures. The autonomy of the elderly is increasingly eroded in a technology-dominated environ‐ment， further exacerbated by the pervasive integration of Internet of Things （IoT） tech‐nologies， which heightens the challenges of privacy protection.In China， while a legal framework for protecting the privacy information of the elderly has been established， some practices remain inadequate. There are gaps in IoT regulations， informed consent mechanisms lack operability， and uniform privacy protection measures have signifi‐cant drawbacks. The protection of elderly privacy information in the era of big data exhibits unique characteristics. First， the types of privacy rights for the elderly are diverse， encompassing multiple dimensions of public law， private law， and social law. Second， the autonomy in information decision-making for the elderly is unclear； in a complex information environment， achieving full self-determination in information management is challenging， often requiring reliance on others. Third， the privacy infor‐mation needs of the elderly are twofold； within the context of smart healthcare， there is a need for both passive protection of privacy rights and active safeguarding of per‐sonal information interests. Fourth， contradictions exist in protecting elderly privacy information. Current regulations in China exhibit inconsistencies in practice， making it difficult to balance diverse interests comprehensively.To effectively protect the privacy information of the elderly， a comprehensive approach is essential. First， the goals and principles of protection must be clarified， with safeguarding the elderly’s informa‐tional self-determination as a core objective. This should be undertaken while adhering to principles of differentiated， systematic， and collaborative protection. Given the unique features of elderly health information， various strategies should be employed to meet privacy protection requirements based on different health conditions and needs. Efforts should be made across public law， private law， and social law dimensions to establish a comprehensive， multi-tiered protection framework， ensuring thorough legal coverage and effective implementation. Finally， it is vital to strengthen the synergy between legal and social norms， promoting collaboration among government entities， corporations， social organizations， and the public to achieve a harmonious governance model， thereby fostering the healthy and sustainable development of smart healthcare models for the elderly.

KEYWORDS： smart healthcare for the elderly； elderly； privacy information protec‐tion； legal system； collaborative protection

Theoretical Reasoning and Strategies for Safeguard‐ing the Right to Information Accessibility

ZHANG Jingjing （School of Law， Beijing Institute of Technology）

Abstract： The right to information accessibility empowers citizens to access， obtain， and utilize information without impediments. In an increasingly digitized and intelli‐gent society， emphasizing this right holds both theoretical significance and practical necessity. This right is integral to realizing the fundamental rights to survival and development， thereby contributing to the enhancement of overall social welfare. The standing of the right to information accessibility can be substantiated through three dimensions： rationality， legality， and feasibility. The interests of citizens in accessing both personal and public information constitute the rational foundation for this right. Existing statutes， regulations， normative frameworks， and constitutional principles， including equality and the protection of human rights provide legal backing. More‐over， China’s distinct market for information accessibility services and its commit‐ment to a people-centered human rights philosophy lay the groundwork for practically implementing this right.However， realizing the right to information accessibility faces threats from prevalent societal biases， ambiguous responsibility allocations among obligated parties， and inadequate institutional provisions. In terms of cognitive frame‐works， the medical， social， and human rights models fail to fully acknowledge the essential nature of this right for all citizens in the digital age， offering insufficient regard for realizing individual autonomy. Regarding responsibility allocations， there is a lack of clarity concerning the duties of government entities as well as ambiguity in the obligations placed on internet companies. Additionally， an absence of explicit incentive structures hinders institutional supply， and there is a lack of unified yet adapt‐able implementation standards， as well as a comprehensive legal framework.To effec‐tively tackle these challenges， a multi-faceted approach is essential. Conceptually， adopting a universal model can correct biases and address the information accessibility needs of all societal members. Regarding responsibilities， the state and internet compa‐nies must be recognized as obligated parties safeguarding the right to information accessibility. The government should enhance the coordination mechanism among departments， ensure barrier-free access to public information both online and offline， and oversee the comprehensive process of constructing information accessibility. Con‐currently， internet companies must fulfill their obligations to meet fundamental func‐tional requirements， transparently disclose their progress in developing accessible information exchange platforms， and manage information with accountability. At the institutional level， it is critical to promote incentive measures and reward-punishment mechanisms， refine technical accessibility standards， and strengthen the associated legal framework.

KEYWORDS： right to information accessibility； emerging rights； human rights； uni‐versal model； platform obligations