SHEN Taixia* & WANG Chao**

 

Abstract: With the advent of the learning age, the connotation of the “right to education” can no longer meet the requirements of personal and social development, so it is necessary to introduce the concept of the right to learn with a richer connotation. As a basic human right, the proposal and guarantee of the right to learn directly respond to the practical problems in the information age and the learning age. The right to learn is fundamental freedom enjoyed by everyone to acquire useful knowledge, skill, value, spirit, and attitude through reading, watching, listening, thinking, researching, practicing, being educated, and other learning methods to develop and perfect a personality. The philosophical basis, connotation, attribute, extraterritorial legislative guarantee of the right to learn and the development of the times determine it should be regarded as a basic human right. Treating the right to learn as a basic human right and systematically guaranteeing it through the amendment of China’s Education Law and other supporting legislation will contribute to the realization of this right, the improvement of national knowledge, and the progress of China’s social civilization.

 

Keywords: right to learn · right to education · basic human rights · education law · human dignity

 

 

In the 1950s, the concept of the right to learn rose to be a major concern. Amid social transformations, the arrival of the learning age and the emergence and development of diverse education modes: lifelong learning, informal education, at-home education, online learning and social training, the traditional concept of the right to education was no longer able to satisfy the requirements of a modern learning society, leading to public reflections on the traditional education paradigm. With the issuance of the Declaration on the Right to Learn at UNESCO’s 1985 Fourth International Conference on Adult Education in Paris, the concept of the right to learn was formally acknowledged: it has become an upper-seat concept of the right to education. It was recognized by the Conference and its Declaration as a fundamental human right. It was construed as an integral part of human nature and thus a universal right.¹ Is it, in essence, a fundamental human right?

 

Some Chinese scholars hold that the right to learn is the same concept as the right to education, making no distinction between them. For example, some textbooks on human rights laws choose to use the right to education but not to use or mention the right to learn. They simply classify many elements of the right to learn, such as the rights to learning opportunities, learning conditions and learning accomplishments, under the right to education,² whereas others have conducted deep research on the attributes of the right to education³ but not on the attributes of the right to learn, seeming to equate the right to education with the right to learn.⁴ Yet, in recent times, some scholars have come to notice differences between the two. For example, Ni Hongtao has pointed out that the freedom to learn, or the right to learn, applies to all educational forms and in all educational periods. In contrast, the right to education only applies to the education of minors’, especially in the compulsory education period, playing its role as an alternative or complement to the freedom to learn. Ni contends that the right to learn in the compulsory education stage has the dual attribute of the freedom to learn and the social right.⁵ But his research has largely focused on the right to learn of college students and its relief.⁶ More scholars have conducted their research into the right to learn from the perspective of pedagogy. Chen Enlun argues that, as a bundle of rights, the right to learn consists of at least three rights: the freedom to learn, the right to guaranteed learning conditions and the right to personality development. He points out that, in a pro-learning society, the traditional education mode has no longer been able to satisfy the needs of social development, so a new education system should be established to ensure the realization of the right to learn.⁷ In light of the requirements of a pro-learning society, Yin Li advocates that the right to learn should be guaranteed by law and policy and thus thinks that it is necessary to establish the guarantee of realizing the right to learn as the value basis of education laws and policies in a learning society.⁸

 

Many foreign scholars also look into the right to learn from the perspective of pedagogy. For example, Linda Darling-Hammond delved into the right to learn from the perspective of pedagogy in her works, making a clear distinction between the right to learn and the right to education. She emphasized that the right to learn should be ensured through education system reforms.9 Ken Brown argues that along with a learning society, there will be more diverse modes of education and thus also more lifelong learning opportunities for everyone. Yet, governments, more often than not, equate learning with the national education curriculum and examinations. From guaranteeing the right to learn, Brown stresses that alternative approaches to the existing education modes should be encouraged and discusses the ways in which their implementation in the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States.¹⁰ In addition, the research by scholars such as Bruce Macfarlane discusses the reforms in the education system, also mainly from the perspective of the freedom to learn, emphasizing the student-centered approach.¹¹ Some scholars in international law have also not clearly distinguished and defined the concepts of the right to learn and the right to education, and some textbooks on international human rights laws mostly use the concept of the right to education.¹² The reason may be that the right to education has been enshrined in formal international human rights conventions, while the right to learn has been employed exclusively in the declarations of human rights.

 

From the perspective of human nature,¹³ Teruhisa Horio, a Japanese scholar in education and a pioneer in researching the right to learn, clarified earlier that the right to learn is the right of a person throughout his or her lifetime. The common sense in the Japanese constitutional circle holds that the right to education is composed of the right to learn, with the latter being the centerpiece of the former.¹⁴ Motohisa Kaneko holds that the right to learn is a human right for all human beings. Regardless of being youth or adults, or residents or citizens, everyone is the subject of the right to learn. However, in terms of the right to growth and development, the right to learn applies mainly to children.¹⁵ In his latest works, Horio makes more comprehensive research on the right to learn of the people, further affirming that the right to learn is the fundamental direction of educational reform¹⁶.

 

To sum up, further research on the right to learn should be made in the Chinese law community to reach agreements on some basic issues, such as the nature and contents of the right to learn and its relations with other rights, which constitute the core topic to be addressed in this paper. From various dimensions, including its conceptualization context, its definition and contents, its relations with other rights and extraterritorial legislative practices in guaranteeing it, the present study makes a detailed demonstration that the right to learn is a fundamental human right.

 

 

From the perspectives of human rationality and human liberty, many ancient sages have long made the case that the right to learn is an independent human right, and their discourses have established the philosophical basis of the right to learn.¹⁷ Yet, the concept of the right to learn ’was not formally put forward until the 1950s. As the social transformations proceeded, people began to reflect on and attempt to reshape traditional education paradigms as the traditional concept of the right to education could no longer satisfy the needs and requirements of “a learning society” and respond to and explain many issues in the real world, such as learning for adults or the elderly with traditional education, learning for preschoolers, learning for individuals via the internet, informal training by private-sector educators, as well as lifelong learning and at-home learning for individuals. Therefore, it is of great necessity and urgency to formulate the concept of the right to learn.

 

As noted above, the Declaration on the Right to Learn adopted at UNESCO’s 1985 Fourth International Conference on Adult Education explicitly defines that the right to learn is a fundamental human right, making it clear that the right to learn is the inherent and universal fundamental human right of humans.¹⁸

 

However, in Japan, the formulation of the right to learn was closely related to the domestic post-war education crisis. The government’s tightening control of national education and constant interference with freedom of schooling posed a severe challenge to children’s free development and their right to learn, and the grueling school entrance exam system, which recognized the best performers in exams as the winners and turned schooling education into an appendage of the exam preparatory industry and schools into the battle arena of social selection, put huge pressure on students, leading to a mounting physical and psychological abnormality and a rising incidence of suicides and domestic violence incidents. The “right to learn” concept provided the foundation and hope for education reform in Japan, and post-war Japanese laws mandated that education reform in Japan should be based on the respect for the right to learn for all persons.¹⁹ Article 3 of the Basic Act on Education of Japan provides for the concept of lifelong learning for citizens, whereas Article 3 of the Basic Act on Education in the Republic of Korea directly defines the people’s right to learn.

 

China is, obviously, now in a completely different historical context. At present, formulating and guaranteeing the right to learn as a fundamental human right better responds to and resolves some realistic issues as China is morphing into a learning society and embodies the people’s status as the principal subject in a nation, enabling the people to be the main participants, promoters, and beneficiaries of advancing the human rights cause. In addition, it is imperative for China to achieve common prosperity, especially common enrichment in culture, thought and ideology. Formulating and guaranteeing the right to learn as a fundamental human right also embodies all-inclusive human rights development and protection and the thought of promoting the all-around development of human beings.

 

First of all, the rapid economic development, technological progress and an information-enabled context in China have much more knowledge made available to cognitive agents, and emerging information technologies, such as the internet, digitalization, big data and artificial intelligence, also allow cognitive agents to aggregate scattered ideas, sort out fragmented notions and quickly pass integrated thoughts to others. The enhancement of autonomy and self-service in knowledge generation, dissemination and application provides a solid boost for the self-motivation of cognitive agents and the effectiveness of cognitive activities. Given China has nowadays shaped up as a learning-oriented society approving of learning, subjectivity, development, openness, integration and service, lifelong learning is increasingly intertwined with the production and daily life of its citizens.²⁰ As learning forms and approaches are diversifying and the time available for learning is increasing, the traditional concept of the right to education hasn’t been any longer able to explain and resolve some new issues in practice, such as nursery education for preschoolers, on-campus education for college students, adult self-learning, vocational training, extracurricular training, virtual learning over the Internet, and related infringements. These issues are in urgent need of theoretical attention and response.

 

Second, with ever-changing social structures and stronger awareness and concept of citizens’ rights amid economic, social, cultural, and political development, learning is no longer confined within the framework of traditional education, and citizens have growing demands for education options. Therefore, in a law-based society, the shift from schooling education to lifelong learning is also the process of rights transformation and thus needs to be sustained by corresponding right transformations. The suitable formulation of the concept of the right to learn well reflects the autonomy of the subjects of the right. It contributes to fully stimulating the enthusiasm, initiative, and creativity of a broad range of the population, enabling people to be the main participants, promoters, and beneficiaries of the development of the human rights cause in China.

 

Third, formulating and guaranteeing the right to learn as a fundamental human right is also an inevitable requirement for China to achieve common prosperity, especially cultural and spiritual common prosperity. As General Secretary Xi Jinping has said: “We should focus on responding to the needs, concerns and expectations of the people, have the people benefit from the development in economic, political, cultural, social, ecological and all other aspects, and have the people live with a stronger, more immediate and more tangible sense of acquisition, happiness and security. Thus, we should constantly promote the all-round development of human beings and pursue common prosperity for all the people.”²¹ However, due to the uneven distribution of learning and education resources in China, some people in underdeveloped and remote areas still can’t get access to a desirable learning environment and sufficient learning resources. Therefore, it is urgent for the state and society to fairly provide and allocate learning resources and opportunities to them to the greatest extent of their economic and financial capacities. The superiority of the socialist system lies in having all the people share the benefits from the development of China’s economic, social, cultural and all other aspects and achieving common prosperity in all these aspects for all the people.

 

Finally, formulating and guaranteeing the right to learn as a fundamental human right can better embody the Chinese government’s commitment to common development and protection of the first and second generation human rights, highlighting the comprehensiveness of human rights protection in China. Being essentially a right of freedom, the right to learn falls within the category of first-generation human rights. It serves as the basis for other human rights, such as the right to education, the right to cultural participation, freedom of expression and others. While the right to education falls within the category of second-generation human rights, the joint protection of the human rights of both generations demonstrates the Chinese government’s confidence in its stated approach to safeguarding and developing human rights in all aspects. Of course, formulating the concept of the right to learn also contributes to resolving some problems in China’s education system and deepening its education system reform.

 

From the perspectives of the philosophical basis, the conceptualization context of the right to learn, its status in the Declaration on the Right to Learn and the extraterritorial legislative practice, this study argues that the right to learn is an inherent fundamental human right for all humankind.

 

First, learning is one of the instincts of human beings and also one of the most important features setting apart human beings from other lower-grade animals. Learning is the natural property of human beings: human beings are originally prone to learning. In other words, learning is inseparable from the essence of human beings. Since its birth, when they open their eyes, they have begun to learn. Babies learn to speak, express, crawl, walk, write, read, play with toys and so on through stimulation from external environments and contact with others. Learning ability is an inherent characteristic of human beings. Therefore, the right to learn has the attribute of human rights, and just like the right to life, it can’t be given up and will be with a person throughout lifetime. That is, “giving up your freedom is giving up your eligibility as a human being, and giving up the rights of human beings.”²² In the system of human rights, just like the right to life, the right to learn is a fundamental human right. Even people who are deprived of their personal freedom also enjoy the right to learn from ways such as reading, calculation, writing, imagination and creation. In a sense, the freedom of the spirit is more fundamental than personal freedom.

 

Second, learning is the embodiment of human dignity and is indispensable to the development of an individual’s personality. Learning allows an individual’s personality and abilities to become fully developed. Everyone has the right to grow and develop. In this process, the sound development of an individual’s personality must be a process of constantly enriching and improving oneself through learning. Human dignity is the foundation of the right to learn, and the development and perfection of an individual’s personality must be realized in the course of learning. To guarantee the right to learn is a need for the development and perfection of an individual’s personality. Amid today’s increasingly fierce social competition, the generally front-loaded social pressure has led to school education seriously deviating from its original purposes. Schooling has been turned into an arena for social competition. Children have been left with no freedom to choose their learning contents and modes, and their personalities cannot be developed freely. As a result, students are reduced to being machines of education and examinations, their human dignity and physical and mental health have been seriously impaired. To affirm and guarantee the right to learn as a fundamental human right helps reset school education on the right track of respecting human dignity and respecting the law of children’s growth and development.

 

Third, learning is an indispensable tool for human survival and development. Human beings in the initial stage of civilization seemed to be groups of being confined in caves. They couldn’t go out of their caves but could only get knowledge of the outside world by reading into the shadows of external things cast on their cave walls.²³ The right to learn is a great invention. It functions like a lamp, guiding human beings to gain knowledge of themselves and to venture out of their caves and learn about the world around them. The survival, self-sustainment and continuation of humankind itself and its economic, social and cultural development and progress need to be supported by the freedom to learn, and health maintenance, the improvement of living standards and the accumulation of civilization need to be based on the freedom to learn and the right to learn. The right to learn is the foundation of human development and a premise of the development of agriculture, industry as well as the whole society. The entire history of human progress is the process in which human beings accumulate helpful knowledge, skills, values and attitudes, and transform nature, transform themselves and build on their own history through continuous learning. This critical role of the right to learn also determines its attribute of being an independent human right.

 

Further, the right to learn is the basis of other important rights. Learning is the basis of creation and invention and the premise of intellectual property rights. Without sufficient learning and accumulation, humankind can’t carry out great inventions and creative activities. The right to learn is also the premise for freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Without sufficient learning and accumulation, it is difficult for human beings to form valuable thoughts and express them.

 

Finally, the right to learn is universal. The freedom to learn is universally recognized in all regions and by all countries and is entitled to everyone. It doesn’t differ with race, color, gender, language, religion, political views, nationality, social background, wealth, birth and social status.

 

Although scholars who recognize the right to learn as an independent right have also reached the consensus that the right to learn is a fundamental human right, there is still some controversy about the contents of the right to learn in the domestic theoretical circle.²⁴ Instead of agreeing with the unlimited expansion of the content scope of the right to learn to cover anything, this study recognizes that the concept of the right to learn should be defined from its essence and attributes. 

 

 

Before having a scientific definition of the right to learn, we have to make sense of its meaning from the core words in it.

 

From the perspective of Western linguistics, the phrase “the right to learn” consists of the word “right” and the word combination “to learn”. Obviously, the former here refers to right or entitlement, while the latter can be regarded as either a verb phrase or a noun phrase, and whose meaning depends on that of its core word: learn. According to the Oxford Advanced English Dictionary, the word learn means: to gain knowledge or skill by studying, from experience, from being taught, etc.²⁵

 

According to Ci Hai, the expression “xuexi” in the Chinese context has various explanations: 1. the Book of Rites — Proceedings of Government in Lunar Months states that: “jixi zhi yue ying nai xuexi (In the last month of summer (the Chinese lunar June), eagles are learning)”. “xue” here corresponds to the English words “copy”, “imitate” or “learn from...”, while “xi” here “to flutter up repeatedly”, so “xuexi” means “birds repeatedly learn how to fly up”. 2. to acquire knowledge or skills. The Historical Records of the First Emperor of the Qin Dynasty states that: “Scholars shall study laws and bear in mind prohibitions.” That is to say, to follow the example of laws.²⁶ Thus, learning refers to a process of acquiring knowledge or skills through imitation, study, practice, or other approaches. The Analects of Confucius states: “Is it not a pleasure to learn and practice your learning”?, placing equal emphasis on “learning” and “practicing.” namely, not only on the process of “learning,” but also on the effect or the goal of mastering the knowledge or the skills learned by “practicing or experimenting.”

 

In short, Chinese and Western cultures have largely the same understanding of the word “learn.” Although its ways and contents of learning may be diverse and abundant, its connotation is clear-cut and specific, having the direct purpose of acquiring knowledge and skills through diverse approaches, roughly including study, imitation, practice and being taught.

 

UNESCO’s Declaration on the Right to Learn in 1985 has framed the concept of the right to learn: it is the right to read and write, to ask questions and to think, to imagine and create, to recognize the human world and write history, to get access to educational resources and to develop individual and collective skills,²⁷ and it urges all the peoples, nations and the United Nations to work together to promote and push forward the realization of the right to learn. By the expressions in the Declaration, the right to learn focuses on the guarantee of learning activities. The definition of the right to learn in the Declaration has become the basis for defining the right to learn in academic circles worldwide. Shi Zhongying argues that: “the right to learn is a cluster of rights related to the state of students’ internal thoughts and external behaviors to think and act independently throughout their learning activities and related support for this state.”²⁸ Chen Enlun believes that: “the right to learn is the basic right of a person in a learning-oriented society. It is a unity composed of the freedom to learn, the right to guarantee the learning conditions with the right to education at the core and the right of individual development.”²⁹ Despite being different these definitions still have some thoughts in common: first, the right to learn is a free right; and second, the subjects of the right to learn are clearly defined as individuals.

 

In addition to largely approving of the definition of the right to learn in the Declaration on the Right to Learn, this study takes a step further to optimize the concept by summing up various academic views and defines it as fundamental freedom being entitled to everyone to obtain helpful knowledge, skills, values, spirits, and attitudes through various means and ways, such as reading, watching, listening, thinking, studying, practicing and educating, to develop, improve and consummate personalities. This definition clarifies its subject, content, and nature. It reveals that its value legitimacy is to develop and consummate an individual’s personality and ultimately contribute to the development of human beings and the whole society.

 

First of all, the subject of the right to learn can be any individual, or all persons. That is, regardless of race, color, gender, language, religion, political affiliations or opinions, nationalities, social backgrounds, properties, dates of birth or other factors, anyone enjoys the right to learn. By the age brackets, its subject may be classified into two categories: children and adults.

 

Second, its core content is liberty, that is, an individual’s liberty to engage in learning activities. This liberty, in fact, consists of negative liberty and positive liberty, with the former meaning being free from interventions and restrictions by others, while the latter meaning having or exercising the freedom to do whatever the subject voluntarily chooses to, namely the “freedom to do something.”³⁰ The right to learn is a freedom to be free from external restrictions and interventions and voluntarily engage in independent learning activities. When a person has the right to learn, it means that: first, his/her learning activities are not interfered with by any others. For example, if he/she learns to swim in his/her swimming pool, no individuals, NGOs and/or states shall prohibit or hinder him/her from the learning activities; second, he/she can choose the ways and contents of learning as he/she likes to. With the freedom to learn to swim, he/she can choose to learn either breaststroke, freestyle or butterfly, and also can learn the skill by reading swimming textbooks, watching teaching videos, learning from professional coaches, or practicing or exploring on his/her own. This study does not agree with the view of Chen Enlun that the right to guarantee learning conditions is part of the right to learn as the realization of any right entails specific social conditions, and to be specific, the satisfactory guarantee of the right to learn likewise necessitates sufficient and better conditions provided by the government and the society. For example, even with the right to learn to swim, individuals can’t require that enough standardized swimming pools or professional swimming coaches are made available to them in all countries, albeit their absence facilitates such learning activities and contributes to the realization of the right to learn. Of course, with the progress of society, some countries are ready to constantly improve and upgrade their learning conditions and environments to enhance the cultivation and quality of their populace. 

 

Third, the guaranteed scope of the right to learn covers that of learning contents and approaches. Due to their diversity and variety, it is very difficult to enumerate all the learning contents and approaches. The World Declaration on Education For All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs adopted at the 1990 World Conference on Education for All jointly initiated and sponsored by UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP and the World Bank has further provisions on the approaches and contents of basic learning. According to the Declaration, the approaches cover various ways and means, such as reading, oral expression, calculation and problem-solving, while the contents cover knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes necessary to survive, to fully develop personal abilities, to live a dignified life, to engage in dignified work, and to develop and improve the quality of life.³¹ In 1996, UNESCO went further to enrich the connotation of learning by identifying the four main elements of learning: Learning to Live Together, Learning to Know, Learning to Do and Learning to Be.³² The book: Nurturing the Treasure: Vision and Strategy 2002-2007 published by UNESCO in 2003 proposed a fifth type of learning: Learning to Change.³³ Thus, the contents of learning are diverse and abundant, and usually cover the following elements: 1. knowledge and skills; 2. attitudes and values; and 3. spirits and abilities. Similarly, the basic means of learning are diverse, mainly including reading, watching, listening, calculating, thinking, studying, practicing, getting educated, etc. 

 

Fourth, the subject of duty for the right to learn mainly covers the state and the society. While adults can usually exercise and realize their right to learn on their own, the state and the society should not infringe on the freedom to learn of individuals. The historical event of burning books and burying alive Confucian scholars is a typical example of states’ infringements on individuals’ right to learn. On the other hand, any basic right doesn’t go unrestricted. That is to say, the subject of any right must respect the rights of others and public interests,³⁴ while restrictions on basic rights shall usually meet the requirements of formal norms and the means of substantive restriction.³⁵ In the case of the right to learn, when the right to learn of a person or persons harms the rights or public interests of others, the state has the power to intervene. To avoid the abuse of public power, the restriction on human rights by the public power must be clearly provided by the constitution or laws, and its means must be justified to conform to the principle of proportionality. For example, people are forbidden by the state from learning criminal methods as such ones would endanger others’ rights and public interests, and a college student is also discouraged to study late at night as such a practice would impair the right of roommates to rest. Though the rudiment classification of “freedom — social rights” carries considerable explanatory power, this analytical framework also leads to some confusion, failing to articulate two issues: (1) states’ positive obligations to the freedom right; and (2) states’ negative obligations to the social right. In fact, the right to freedom can’t be fully achieved without the state’s fulfillment of their positive obligations.³⁶ Although the right to learn is an important condition for knowledge inquiry and the freedom of learning from power intervention, which belongs to the category of freedom, modern learning and studies cannot be achieved without schools, libraries, research rooms and other facilities and research funds, it is difficult to be self-sufficient only by requiring the state not to intervene.³⁷ In addition, as the guarantee of the right to learn has a stake in the population quality and future of a state or a nation and the development and progress of a society, the state and the society should provide possible conditions for the realization of the right to learn, such as schools, libraries, museums, network facilities, etc. In addition to the essential attributes of freedom rights, the right to learn in the modern society also takes on the characteristics of social rights³⁸. Therefore, the obligations of the state and the society to the right to learn can be summarized as the obligations to respect, protect and fulfill. The obligation to respect means that the state and the society should respect citizens’ right of freedom to choose their learning types, modes and contents; the obligation to protect means that the state and the society should guarantee citizens’ right to learn by legislative, administrative and judicial means; and the obligation to fulfill means that the state and the society should provide corresponding guarantees for realizing citizens’ right to learn in terms of materials, services and institutions.³⁹ Yet, notably, lifelong learning has a rather wide range and covers the compulsory education stage. Generally speaking, the right to education guaranteed by the constitution in all states is mainly limited to the compulsory education stage, when the beneficial right enjoyed by citizens is mainly the claim for fulfillment. However, in other education or learning stages, citizens only have the right to claim for sharing the fulfillment by states. In other words, except for compulsory education, the state has no constitutional obligation to provide universal, free and mandatory education to all citizens. In terms of states’ obligation to fulfill in other stages of education and learning activities, citizens have the right to claim for sharing the fulfillment with the state, which mainly comes up in the form of the state’s fulfillment conducive to the realization of basic rights of citizens to the extent of economic and social affordability.⁴⁰ The legal benefits of protecting the right to share fulfillment are to make everyone enjoy equal access to opportunities for self-realization to the greatest possible economic and financial assistance from the state. The right to learn mainly requires that the state and the society provide fair and equal access to learning opportunities. Given children aren’t well-positioned to achieve their right to learn on their own, parents, teachers and educational institutions matter much to the realization of their right to learn, and thus assume the auxiliary obligation to realize their right to learn.⁴¹ Now, let’s look into the subjects and specific contents of the obligations to children’s right to learn at different levels.

 

First, children enjoy the right and freedom to learn free from interventions, and parents, teachers, educational institutions, the society and the state have the obligation not to interfere in children’s learning activities. Yet, due to relatively limited cognitive and behavioral abilities on the side of children, it is difficult to judge whether their right is subjected to improper interference; second, children enjoy the positive liberty of the right to learn. That is, children enjoy the freedom to choose their learning contents and means, but its realization entails assistance from parents. To be in the best interests of their children, parents have the right to choose the learning contents and means of their children, and the state and the society should respect the learning choices of children and their parents; third, parents and teachers have special obligations for the realization of children’s right to learn. Parents have the obligation to develop family education and provide learning opportunities for their children, and teachers have the obligation to preach on doctrines, impart knowledge and clear up confusion;⁴² fourth, as a vital player, educational institutions have the obligation to assist children in exercising and realizing their right to learn, shall not engage in propaganda for particular political groups or religious beliefs, and shall provide a favorable learning environment for children; and fifth, the society and the state should undertake the basic guarantee and promotion obligations for the realization of children’s right to learn, such as setting up schools, libraries, museums, children’s palaces and other learning places and facilities. But, the obligation to guarantee and promote is usually constrained by the national economic, social and cultural development levels. 

 

Finally, the guarantee of the right to learn as a fundamental human right is well justified by the value and moral legitimacy of the right. The whole history of human society is the evolution process of how human beings learn, improve their own abilities and conquer nature. The ultimate goal of learning is to develop human potential and personality, promote personal self-realization, and then enhance the development of the whole human beings and society. The right to learn itself is designed for doing good, and learning any skills that threaten to harm oneself, others and the society is and shall be restricted or prohibited.

 

Just like any other right, the realization of the right to learn also necessitates certain conditions. Favorable and good learning environments, sufficient and high-quality learning resources and equal learning opportunities are important guarantees for its realization. But, in reality, there are various resistances to its realization. On the one hand, as social competition is increasing, educational pressure has generally been front-loaded, resulting in advance education and over-education in the preschool education and basic education stages. In addition, ignoring the laws of education and students’ growth and development, some extracurricular training institutions resort to “exam-oriented” education. They seriously disturb children’s learning environments and deprive children of their autonomy to learn. With their freedom to learn exposed to undue interference, it is difficult for children to choose their contents and forms of learning independently. On the other hand, though having carved out a higher possibility of realizing the right to learn for all, the development and increasing adoption of emerging technologies such as the internet, cloud technology and artificial intelligence in learning fields and the constant emergence of new forms of learning have also aggravated the unbalanced landscape in the Chinese educational sector, especially the uneven distribution of learning and educational resources, regional differences and urban-rural differences. Persons in areas with backward economic and cultural conditions have a poor learning environment, limited learning resources and few learning opportunities. Thus, it is urgent for the government to balance national learning and educational resources, improve the environment for all to realize their right to learn, and ensure the equal access to learning opportunities. In addition, due to age and physiological limitations, short years of education, lower education level and unequal distribution of educational resources, vulnerable groups, including children, the disabled, farmers, persons without farming fields, the unemployed and minority groups, meet more obstacles to realizing their right to learn, and the state and the society should provide special safeguards to them.⁴³

 

In short, the core content of the right to learn is the freedom from external interventions to acquire helpful knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and spirits through various learning means. The right to learn guarantees the freedom of learning activities, including the freedom to choose learning contents and means. The realization of the right to learn requires certain conditions, and the state and the society should actively fulfill their obligations to respect, guarantee and fulfill by removing the obstacles to its realization. 

 

 

To make distinction between the right to learn and other rights is very necessary, which directly determines the attribute of the right to learn as a fundamental human right. This section focuses on the relations of the right to learn with other rights: the right to education, the right to cultural participation, and the freedom of expression and information.

 

 

The constitutions of various states and some international human rights documents have provisions on the right to education.⁴⁴ Many scholars confuse the right to education with the right to learn. In fact, they are different things. The main differences between them go as follows: 

 

First, the right to learn covers both active and passive learning (being educated), and includes the freedom of learning and access to education. It emphasizes the freedom of learning, and regular education is just one of the diverse methods and approaches to realize it. Individuals can learn at home, at school, from the society they live in or from other people, which is just the case of “there is always someone to learn from.” Everyone can choose the contents and methods of learning based on their own intentions. Learning covers not only the learning in the compulsory education stage but also preschool learning, other non-routine learning and learning after compulsory education, and thus is actually a lifelong activity of human beings regardless of age, while the right to education mainly refers to the right to obtain education in the compulsory education stage, and mainly guarantees the right of the school-age population to get access to schools and educational resources.⁴⁵

 

Second, in national laws as well as international and regional human rights conventions, the right to education mostly emphasizes the obligations and responsibilities of states and governments, and is regarded as a second-generation human right, while the right to learn should be a first-generation human right, emphasizing the freedom of learning and the freedom from external interventions. However, it is undeniable that any right cannot be realized without certain social conditions, and the guarantee and realization of the right to learn also require governments and the society to create certain conditions for it, but this does not mean that the right to learn should be classified as a second-generation human right.

 

Third, the right to education is deemed as both a right and an obligation in some regions and countries,⁴⁶ namely, individuals must receive education in the compulsory education stage. Otherwise, it is an illegal act, whereas the right to learn is a fundamental human right and lifelong freedom, more focusing on individuals’ rights.

 

Finally, the two have different periods of duration. The right to education only exists at a particular stage of life, while the right to learn extends throughout one’s lifetime. Human beings are learning all the time: as long as there is information coming in, there are learning activities, which are determined by human nature. That is to say, learning activities actually occur all one’s life and cannot be given up.

 

The analysis given above suggests that the relation between the right to learn and the right to education isn’t the simple relationship that one includes or is included by the other. The monopoly, distortion, or aberration of modern education and various examination-oriented malpractices are in violation of human nature, not only, in a sense, infringing on the right to learn of children and youth but also going against the purpose of education stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights conventions: education is to achieve the full development of human personality, strengthen the respect for fundamental rights and freedom, and promote world peace. If any educational practice deviates from the goal of learning or hinders the development of the right to learn, corrections to them must be made. The realization of the right to education is only a way of realizing the right to learn, which should not violate human nature. The formulation and implementation of educational policies and the contents and methods of education should ultimately be purposed to realize the right to learn. The current “double reduction” policy in China is an important measure to rectify the various problems of distorting “the right to learn” in the education industry and ensure the right to education reverts to rationality and human nature.

 

 

Many international conventions on human rights have provisions on the right to cultural participation.⁴⁷ Yet, although the two are closely interrelated, they are different mainly in the following aspects: 

 

First, the two have different connotations. The right to learn focuses on the freedom of “learning,” while the right to cultural participation focuses on the right to participate in cultural activities. Obviously, “learning” activities are not limited to participating in scientific and cultural activities. For example, an individual can acquire knowledge and skills by studying independently, such as reading, thinking and practicing.

 

Second, they are, to some extent, rights of different natures. The right to learn is a first-generation human right and a positive right, emphasizing more on freedom and no governmental intervention with and hindrance to its realization, while the right to cultural participation is a cultural right, which entails governmental actions to actively protect, promote, develop and spread science and culture.

 

And third, the right to learn, as a fundamental human right, holds the fundamental status in the system of human rights, while the right to cultural participation is a general human right, not commanding the same status.

 

Of course, there are also close connections between them, which can be classified as a mutually reinforcing relations.

 

First, a well-developed right to cultural participation facilitates the realization of the right to learn. Cultural participation is a critical form of learning. The state should create conditions for realizing the right to cultural participation, and the protection,dissemination, accumulation and development of science and culture is both an important guarantee and a premise of the right to learn.

 

Second, the effective exercise of the right to learn is conducive to creating and developing a favorable scientific culture, which is a premise for exercising the right to cultural participation and cultural benefits.

 

Finally, the two have a shared goal. They are both oriented toward promoting the development and improvement of human nature and the development and progress of social civilization.

 

 

Freedom of expression, mainly referring to the freedom to assert and express opinions, has been widely recognized by national and international human rights laws. The freedom of information, usually construed as an extension of the freedom of speech and expression,⁴⁸ is also recognized by international human rights laws. Freedom of information herein mainly means that state organs or other social subjects should not infringe on the freedom of citizens and social organizations to obtain and disseminate information. Article 15 of the Declaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen de 1789 provides that “La Société a le droit de demander compte à tout Agent public de son administration”. The freedom of information in the US Freedom of Information Act in 1967 serves as complementary to citizens’ right to know, and focuses on the civil right to access administrative information. This Act mainly addresses the obligations of administrative organs to disclose administrative information to the public, granting the freedom of information a more independent status.

 

There are both differences and close connections between the right to learn and the freedom of expression and information.

 

The main differences between them are as follows: First, they have very different connotations. The right to learn emphasizes the freedom of learning, while the freedom of expression and information focuses on the freedom of expression and access to information. Second, they have different goals. The right to learn aims at acquiring useful knowledge and skills and achieving the perfect development of human nature and human society. Freedom of expression aims at expressing oneself, showing personality, promoting communication, discovering truth and supervising governments, and freedom of information aims at getting access to information and being in the know. 

 

Also, the connection between them is very close. Obviously, information input is a prerequisite of any learning. Information input or external stimulation is the first step in the course of learning and the first link of a learning circle, so the freedom of information is the premise of the right to learn, that is, the realization of the right to learn is conditioned on the freedom of information. Freedom of expression is conducive to the exchange of information and ideas. Therefore, freedom of expression and freedom of information are the basis of the right to learn. Is freedom of information therefore an integral part of the right to learn or an independent right? Some scholars hold that the freedom of information is an integral part of the right to learn,⁴⁹ but this study believes that the freedom of information is an independent right. The absolute freedom of information is impossible, and the freedom of information focuses on citizens’ right to get access to administrative intelligence, rather than the freedom to get access to any information. However, with the development of society, especially the advent of the information age, the freedom of information rights has been separately codified in laws. For example, the United States has enacted a Freedom of Information Act. The exercise and realization of the right to learn are conducive to the realization of the freedom of expression and information as only being well-informed, people can form really meaningful ideas, and then discover the truths and supervise governments through expression. That is, the right to learn and the freedom of expression and information are all mutually reinforcing.

 

Therefore, this study holds that these two are different rights: freedom of expression and freedom information are independent rights. These freedoms to a certain extent constitute the necessary prerequisite and guarantee for the realization of the right to learn.

 

Finally, the right to learn also has a close relation with IP rights, such as copyrights and patent rights. The modern IPR system strives to strike a balance between the right to learn and the rights and interests of IP owners. Certain restrictions should be imposed on IP rights to protect the right to learn as a fundamental human right. The complex relationship between them will be demonstrated in separate studies.

 

 

Over its evolutionary course, the right to learn has morphed from being an ought-to-be human right to being a statutory human right. Rudolf von Jhering said: “All legal power in the world is acquired through a struggle, and every existing rule of law (rechtestz) must be taken only from the people fighting against it. Every right, whether national or personal, is premised on unremitting preparation to self-advocate. This legal power is not logical but a concept of force (kraft)⁵¹” Thus, the realization of rights needs to be fought for.

 

The Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen enacted in 1789 states in its Preamble that: Les Représentants du Peuple Fran?ais, constitués en Assemblée nationale, considérant que l’ignorance, l’oubli ou le mépris des Droits de l’Hommesont les seules causes des malheurs publics et de la corruption des Gouvernements, ont résolu d’exposer, dans une Déclaration solennelle, les droits naturels, inaliénables et sacrés de l’Homme, afin que cette Déclaration, constamment présente à tous les Membres du corps social, leur rappelle sans cesse leurs droits et leurs devoirs...”⁵²

 

In fact, the wide recognition by international and domestic communities of the right to education, which is more entrenched in today’s world, is also the outcome of assertion and struggle. It has gained recognition in domestic and international laws over time. During the 1789 French Bourgeois Revolution, education rose to be an important topic in parliament; in the early days of the Great Revolution, at least 25 education bills from all parties were put forward; in 1793, the Jacobin Constitution was passed, which explicitly defined the right to education for the first time and expressly classified it as a fundamental right for the first time;⁵³ and further later, the Weimarer Verfassung,⁵⁴ effective in 1919, made more detailed provisions on the right to education. The provisions on the guarantee of citizens’ right to education in the Basic Law of Germany are still significantly under the influence of the Weimarer Verfassung. It was not until after World War II that the right to education was further confirmed by international human rights conventions. The promotion of both the theoretical and practical fields are necessary for the inclusion of human rights in the constitution.

 

The right to learn is unique both in its connotation and essence. It is thus different from the right to education, the right to cultural participation, freedom of expression and freedom of information. It is integral to human development and exists throughout a person’s lifetime. Its attributes, such as its significant contribution to personal development, determine the necessity of its inclusion in the constitution or basic education laws. In reality, with the advent of the learning society, the right to learn has also been recognized by some international documents and extraterritorial legislation.

 

UNESCO’s Declaration on the Right to Learn in 1985 defines this right as a “fundamental human right.” The World Declaration on Education For All:Meeting Basic Learning Needs adopted at the 1990 World Conference on Education for All jointly initiated and sponsored by UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP and the World Bank confirms that each person should have access to educational opportunities to meet basic learning needs, introduces further provisions on the approaches and contents of basic learning, and further recognizes the value and significance of basic learning to human survival, improvement of quality of life, personal development and social progress. Later, UNESCO followed up with a series of meetings to work out the actions and plans for education for all. 

 

Meanwhile, the right to learn is also enshrined in t the basic education laws or constitutions of some countries and regions. Countries with a well-developed education system, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, also attach great importance to lifelong education and protect citizens’ right to learn through legislation. The US Congress enacted the Lifelong Learning Act as early as 1976. It not only classifies the category of lifelong learning, but also introduces a series of provisions on how to promote lifelong learning. It legally establishes the status of lifelong learning in the United States, guarantees citizens’ right to learn, and lays a solid legal foundation for the development of lifelong learning.⁵⁵ In Japan, the Basic Act on Education enacted by Congress in 1947 has provisions on US nationals’ right to learn, and the Social Education Act enacted by the Congress in 1949 defines the roles of the subjects of education at the national, provincial and municipal levels, and encourages the establishment of civic municipal halls. In 1990, Japan also passed a Lifelong Learning Promotion Act, which states that: “With the arrival of the learning age, the present Law is enacted to go beyond traditional education and guarantee the right to learn. To actively adapt to social changes, build a dynamic society and meet people’s increasing learning requirements, it is necessary to establish a new education system with a lifelong learning system at the center so as to create a lifelong learning society.” The Act also lays down related provisions on the responsibilities of central and local governments in promoting lifelong learning, the coordination mechanisms of lifelong learning, the overall use of existing lifelong learning resources, the research and formulation of local lifelong learning plans and other topics.⁵⁶ With the arrival of the learning age, the concept of lifelong learning goes beyond the traditional right to education. It is necessary for the right to learn to obtain support and guarantees, especially being recognized and guaranteed by basic laws such as the constitution. The Basic Act on Education of Japan as revised in 2006 provides for the concept of lifelong learning in Article 3, provides for family education and training in Article 10, and provides for the cooperation among schools, residents and families in Article 13.⁵⁷ In addition, Article 31 of the Daehanminguk Heonbeop introduce by South Korea in 1987 provides that the state should vigorously develop lifelong education, laying the constitutional foundation for lifelong education and the right to learn.⁵⁸ In the 1990s, to embrace a learning society, the South Korean government embarked on a series of educational reforms, having the concepts of lifelong learning and education once again embodied by legislation. In 1990, South Korea instituted the Self-study Degree System to open up a new channel for adults to obtain higher diplomas through self-learning, greatly enriching the form and essence of social education and lifelong learning. In its second educational reform in 1996, South Korea revised the Social Education Act to be a Lifelong Learning Act. The Korean Basic Act on Education as twice revised and implemented in 1997 directly provides for the right to learn in Article 3 and the basic rights of learners in Article 12, including that students are respected and protected in school education and social education.⁵⁹ In 1998, South Korea unveiled a draft Lifelong Learning Act and sought public comments through two national questionnaire surveys. The Ministry of Education organized public hearings, made a deep discussion and research on public comments on the draft Lifelong Learning Law and relevant inputs, and reached a consensus on the formulation of the Lifelong Learning Act. In 1999, the Lifelong Education Act was officially enacted to guarantee citizens’ equal access to lifelong learning opportunities. With its legislative purpose and basic principle to guarantee citizens’ right to learn, the Act has been revised several times. It has systematic provisions on the concepts, institutions, ideas, governmental responsibilities, and plans to promote lifelong education.⁶⁰ In 2008, in order to implement the Act, the South Korean government also issued the Implementation Directive of the Lifelong Education Law to further promote the realization of national lifelong learning.⁶¹

 

 

The concept of lifelong learning made its debut in China in the early 1970s. The Education Law of the People’s Republic of China promulgated in 1995 proposed for the first time to “establish and improve the lifelong education system” in the form of legislation. In 1999, the Action Plan for Promoting Education in the 21st Century set the goal of “basically establishing a lifelong learning system,” and the concept of “lifelong learning system” has since asserted itself in official documents.⁶² The Report of the 16th CPC National Congress proposed to “form a learning society for all citizens and for lifelong learning by 2020”⁶³ and the Outlines of the 14th Five-Year Plan adopted at the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee determined that the main goal of China’s education cause during the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) period is to “build a high-quality education system,”emphasizing “to improve the lifelong learning system and build a learning society.”⁶⁴ From the perspective of the future of China’s social development, it is necessary to define the right to learn as a fundamental human right and to provide a legal guarantee for it.

 

The 19th meeting of the Commission for Deepening Overall Reform of the CPC Central Committee on May 21, 2021, deliberated and adopted the Opinions on Further Reducing the Homework Load and Easing the Off-campus Tutoring Burden on Students in Compulsory Education (the Opinions). At the strategic height of realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the Opinions made important decisions and arrangements on the “double reduction” project.Starting with systems, mechanisms and staffing, the Opinions deepened the educational reform, fully implemented the party’s educational policies and completed the fundamental task of promoting good morals and cultivating talents to push forward the all-around development and healthy growth of students.⁶⁵

 

The goal of the “double reduction” policy is to get out of the predicament of domestic education and training distorting and kidnapping human nature, and to promote the comprehensive and healthy growth of Chinese children, and have education and learning revert to their fundamental purpose, namely, personal development and self-realization. This study advocates that, in response to China’s “double reduction” policy, a universal education system with the right to learn at its center should be constructed to have education serve learning and human nature.

 

There are no clear provisions on the right to learn in the Constitution and the Education Law of China. Article 11 of the current Education Law notes that China’s lifelong education system should be improved but elaborates no further. Article 20 (Vocational and Continuing Education Systems) touches on the issue of promoting lifelong learning for all but stops short of classifying the right to learn as a fundamental human right to be guaranteed and also does not specify the connotation and specific systems and measures of lifelong learning. As a nation with a long cultural tradition and which stresses the importance of education and knowledge, China should incorporate the right to learn into its Education Law. It is the requirement of the times but also a feasible move. The 28th Session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress decided to make several modifications to the Education Law, including heavier punishments for “getting school education under others’ identities.”⁶⁶ This modification might respond to some major cases in real life and the appeal from the academic community, but hasn’t yet led to some provisions on advancing and guaranteeing the right to learn. This may be related to insufficient research on the right to learn in the academic community.

 

Given being more unlikely to revise the Constitution than the Education Law in China, this study suggests that such a provision as “the right to learn as a fundamental human right to be guaranteed” should be added to the Education Law. In such a provision, the attributes, connotations and guarantee mechanisms of the right to learn should also be stipulated. Furthermore, relevant laws and regulations may be introduced. For example, some articles like a Lifelong Learning Promotion Law and its detailed implementation rules⁶⁷ may be enacted to further define and clarify the subjects, obligations and responsibilities of the right to learn protection. Special provisions on the protection of the right to learn for special groups should be also made.

 

 

Based on the above research, this study finds that: the right to learn is a basic kind of freedom being entitled to everyone to obtain helpful knowledge, skills, values, spirits and attitudes through various means and ways, such as reading, watching, listening, thinking, studying, practicing and getting educated, for the purpose of developing, improving and consummating personalities. It is an inherent fundamental human right.

 

The right to learn is both different from and closely related to the right to education, the right to cultural participation, and the freedom of expression and information. On the one hand, being different from either the right to education, the right to cultural participation and the freedom of expression and freedom of information or the intellectual property rights, the right to learn has its own unique connotations and attributes: it is an independent human right. It falls within the category of the first-generation human rights. The right to education and the right to cultural participation are both second-generation human rights. The state should take active measures to ensure the realization of citizens’ right to education and the right to cultural participation. On the other hand, the right to learn is the foundation of the right to education, the right to cultural participation and intellectual property rights. Education and cultural participation are the approaches to realizing the right to learn. The freedom of information is the premise of the right to learn, as the accumulation of knowledge and civilization helps to realize the right to learn. The right to learn and the right to education, the right to cultural participation, the freedom of expression and information have a largely consistent overall goal, that is, to develop the human personality, enhance human intelligence and promote the development of human civilization.

 

In reality, there are strained relations between the right to learn and the right to education and intellectual property rights. Cases often occur that, to realize citizens’ right to education, a state or a government infringes on their freedom to learn, or that excessive protection of copyrights and patentees’ interests encroaches on the growth space of the right to learn. The modern intellectual property system should leave enough space for the development of the right to learn so as to achieve the shared prosperity of the right to learn and intellectual property rights.

 

The right to learn functions like a lamp, guiding human beings to get knowledge of themselves and things outside, and finally to venture out of their caves. Given its unique connotation and attributes and in light of the practice in various countries and regions of establishing its status as a fundamental human right enshrined in the constitution or the basic laws of education and relevant legislation to promote its implementation, this study advocates that some provision like “the right to learn as a fundamental human right to be guaranteed” should be added in the Education Law. Relevant laws and regulations should be made to ensure that it is nationally recognized and has better legal protection.

 

(Translated by LIU Zuoyong)

 

* SHEN Taixia ( 沈太霞 ), Associate Professor at Jinan University and Research Fellow at Research Center for Party’s Regulations of Jinan University. Doctor of Laws. 

 

** WANG Chao ( 汪超 ), Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Macau. Doctor of Laws. The authors make herein their grateful acknowledgement to Prof. Xu Dao at Jinan University for his inspiration and input. This study is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities and Jinan University’s Research Center for Party’s Regulations.

 

1. UNESCO, “UNESCO Report of the Director-General on the Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Adult Education”, accessed August 2, 2021. 

 

2. Li Buyun, Human Rights Law (Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2005), 264; Bai Guimei, Human Rights Law(Beijing: Peking University Press, 2011), 169-172.

 

3. Gong Xianghe, “On the Right to a Fair and Quality Education in the New Era,” Educational Research 8 (2021); Gong Xianghe, On the Right to Education (Beijing: Press of the People’s Public Security University of China, 2004); Lao Kaisheng, On Education Laws (Nanjing: Jiangsu Education Publishing House, 1993).

 

4. Professor Gong Xianghe holds that the right to education is essentially the right to learn and by the implementation process of getting educated, the right to education consists of the rights to learning opportunities, learning conditions and learning accomplishments. Therefore, he concludes that the right to education is in essence the right to learn. Gong Xianghe, On the Right to Education, 37. 

 

5. Ni Hongtao, “On the Right to Learn of Students in Compulsory Education — Inspired by the Event of Suspending Mrs. Meng’s Private School”, Law Review 4 (2008): 16-24.

 

6. Ni Hongtao, On the Right to Learn of College Students and its Relief (Beijing: Law Press · China, 2010).

 

7. Chen Enlun, “On the Right to Learn” (Ph.D dissertation, Southwest Normal University, 2003).

 

8. Yin Li, “The Guarantee of the Right to Learn: the Value Base of Education Law and Policy in a Learning Society,” Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences) 3 (2010): 70-78.

 

9. Linda Darling-Hammond, the Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools that Work (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001).

 

10. Ken Brown, the Right to Learn: Alternatives for a Learning Society (London: Routledge Press, 2001).

 

11. Bruce Macfarlane, The freedom to learn (Research into Higher Education) (London: Routledge Press, 2016). 

 

12. Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights Si Theory and Practice (New York: Cornell University Press, 2013), 2; Olivier De Schutter, International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials and Commentary (Third Edition)(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 300-304.

 

13. Teruhisa Horio, The Right to Learn of Children and Youth, Muroi Tsutomu and Eiyin Suzuki, The Basis of the Education Act (Tokyo: Seirin-Shoin, 1978), 48-49.

 

14. Yasuhiro Okudaira, “The Right to Education”, in The Constitution-III, edit by Nobuyoshi Ashibe (Tokyo: Yuhikaku Publishing Co., Ltd., 1987), 382.

 

15. Motohisa Kaneko, “The Scope and Structure of the Right to Learn”, in The Basis of the Education Act, edit by Muroi Tsutomu and Eiyin Suzuki (Tokyo: Seirin-Shoin, 1978), 45-46.

 

16. Teruhisa Horio, Education is a Human Right (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2019), Part-I.

 

17. For example, in his masterpiece: The Republic, Plato argued that: there are also three qualities in a man’s soul (rationality, passion and desire). Rationality is a natural instinct of human beings, and the propensity to acquire learning and wisdom is a natural instinct of human beings. Plato, The Republic, translated by Guo Binhe and Zhang Zhuming (Beijing: the Commercial Press, 2007), 168-171. While touching on the appropriate region of human liberty, John Stuart Mill, an advocate of liberalism, commented that “This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological…” John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, translated by Xu Baozhou (Beijing: the Commercial Press, 2008), 14.

 

18. The Declaration on the Right to Learn defines the right to learn as a fundamental human right, employing the technical term: “It (a fundamental human right,” UNESCO, Final Report of the Fourth International Conference on Adult Education, accessed May 1, 2021.

 

19. Teruhisa Horio, Educational Thought and Ideology in Modern Japan (Xi’an: Shanxi Education Publishing House, 1994), 1-14.

 

20. Chen Enlun, “From the Right to Education to the Right to Learn: the Right Transformation of the Lifelong Learning Society,” Journal of National Academy of Education Administration 1 (2022): 13-18.

 

21. Xi Jinping, The Governance of China-Vol III (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2020), 183.

 

22. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, translated by He Zhaowu (Beijing: the Commercial Press, 2008), 4.

 

23. Plato, The Republic, 275-280.

 

24. For example, Ni Hongtao holds that the right to learn also has the dual attribute of the right to freedom and the social right. Ni Hongtao, “On the right to learn of Students in Compulsory Education — Inspired by the Event of Suspending Mrs Meng’s Private School”. But Chen Enlun holds that the right to learn is a bundle of rights consisting of the right to freedom of learning, the right to guaranteed learning conditions and the right to personality development. Chen Enlun, “On the Right to Learn,” Journal of the Chinese Society of Education 2 (2003).

 

25. “Learn: 1. gain knowledge or skill by study, experience, being taught”, Hornby, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (Fourth Edition Supplement), translated by Li Beida (Beijing: Oxford University Press, 2002), 845.

 

26. Ci Hai Editorial Board, Ci Hai (Beijing: Shanghai Lexicographical Publishing House, 2003), 1262.

 

27. UNESCO, Final Report of the Fourth International Conference on Adult Education, page 67.

 

28. Shi Zhongying, The Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (Beijing: Beijing Normal University Publishing Group, 2002), 283.

 

29. Chen Enlun, “On the Right to Learn,” Journal of the Chinese Society of Education 2 (2003): 24.

 

30. Giovanni Sartori, The Theory of Democracy Revisited, translated by Feng Keli and Yan Kewen (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1998), 304.

 

31. UN Documents, “World Declaration on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs”, accessed June 1, 2021. 

 

32. United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization, “Learning, the treasure within: Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century,” 1996, Paris.

 

33. United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization, “Nurturing the Treasure: Vision and Strate gy 2002-2007”, UNESCO, accessed June 1, 2021.

 

34. Fa Zhibin and Dong Baocheng, The New Theory of the Constitution (Taipei: Angle Publishing Co., Ltd., 2004), 171-175.

 

35. In terms of the regulations on the form, whether there are direct constitutional or legal restrictions (constitutional or legal reservations) and interest-based trade-offs (i. e. conflicts of legal interests); while in terms of the means of substantive restrictions, whether the means of such restrictions conform to the principle of proportionality, namely whether such restrictions are justifiable and necessary (for specific public interests) (i. e., their appropriateness, necessity and proportionality). Xu Yudian, the Constitution (Eighth Edition) (Taipei: Angle Publishing Co., Ltd., 2018), 147-167. Zhang Xiang, Legal Construction of Fundamental Rights Norms(Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2008), 146-147.

 

36. First, the realization of the right to freedom entails judicial reliefs from the judiciary, and second, the real realization of freedom right often entails direct positive acts from the state. Zhang Xiang, same as the previous footnote; Xu Yudian, same as the previous footnote, 109.

 

37. Naoki Kobayashi, Exposition on Modern Basic Rights (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1976), 89.

 

38. Zhou Zhihong, Education Law and Education Reforms (Taipei: Taiwan Higher Education Publishing House, 2003), 523.

 

39. Qi Zhanyong, “State Obligations and Pathways to Realization of Citizens’ Right to Lifelong Learning,” Journal of National Academy of Education Administration 1 (2022): 32-41.

 

40. According to some scholars in Germany and the Taiwan region of China, the actual guarantee of basic rights depends on disposable financial aid and resources available to a nation, and thus, the fiscal unaffordability in a nation is a constraint on the guarantee of basic rights. However, if a nation has resources available to its citizens and the realization of its economic assistance is also a possibility, all its citizens have the right to share the resources. That is to say, all the citizens in a nation share the public facilities (or public resources) conducive to the realization of their basic rights established by the nation. To the greatest possible extent of national economic and financial assistance, the legal benefit of protecting basic rights with the attribute of the sharing right enables every citizen to have equal access to self-realization. The claim for payment is the right that citizens may directly demand a nation to make payments in accordance with the provisions in the Constitution or the Fundamental Law.

 

41. Teruhisa Horio, Educational Thought and Ideology in Modern Japan (Xi’an: Shanxi Education Publishing House, 1991), 371; Yang Qiaoling, “A Critique on the Theory and Practice of People’s Right to Learning and Education in the Educational Fundamental Law,” Forum on Education Policy, vol. 4, issue 2 (2001): 13.

 

42. The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Family Education Promotion effective on January 1, 2022 establishes parents’ legal responsibility for the learning and education of their children in the form of law.

 

43. Lan Lan, “Analysis of the Pathways to Guaranteeing Citizens’ Right to Learn in China’s Lifelong Education Legislation,” Journal of Hebei Normal University (Educational Science Edition) 4 (2019): 90-93.

 

44. For example, Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 13-14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Paragraph 2 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 17 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. 

 

45. According to the timeline of the incorporation of the right to education into constitutions of nations and international conventions on human rights, its protection is largely defined by the goals of civilized nations to improve the overall quality of their populations. Joel Spring, The Universal Right to Education: Justification, Definition and Guidelines (London: Routledge, 2000), 3-11.

 

46. For example, Article 46 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, Article 59 (1) of the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 1992.

 

47. Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 14 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Article 17 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. 

 

48. In addition to the provisions on freedom of expression, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also have the provisions on freedom of information. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 5 of the Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland also have similar provisions. Article 9 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights clearly provides for a person’s right to information.

 

49. For example, Chen Enlun holds that the freedom of learning contains the freedom of information, see Hornby, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (Fourth Edition Supplement), 52.

 

50. The “territories” herein means jurisdictions (legally jurisdictional territories) instead of geographical territories. 

 

51. Rudolf von Jhering, Der Kampf ums Recht, translated by Zheng Yongliu (Beijing: the Commercial Press, 2016), 2.

 

52. Assemblee National, Declaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen de 1789, accessed June 5, 2021.

 

54. Articles 120 and 143-149 of the Weimarer Verfassung, in The Constitutions of the World · Europe, translated by Editorial Board of the Constitutions of the World (Beijing: China Procuratorial Press, 2012), 208.

 

55. Merriam, S., and Caffarella, R., Learning in Adulthood: a Comprehensive Guide (San Francisco: Jossey-Bas, 1999).

 

56. Fuwa, K., “Lifelong education in Japan, a highly school-centered society: educational opportunities and practical educational activities for adults”, 20 International Journal of Lifelong Education 1-2 (2001): 127-136.

 

57. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Basic Act on Education”, accessed June 2, 

2021. 

 

58. Editorial Board of the Constitutions of the World, The Constitutions of the World · Asia (Beijing: China Procuratorial Press, 2012), 240.

 

59. Statutes of the Republic of Korea, “Framework Act on Education”, accessed June 1, 2021. 

 

60. Ministry of Government legislation, “Lifelong Education Act”, Ministry of Government legislation of Korea, accessed June 1, 2021. 

 

61. Ministry of Government legislation, “Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act,” Ministry of Gov ernment legislation of Korea , accessed June 1, 2021. 

 

62. The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, the Action Plan for Promoting Education in the 21st Century, accessed September 1, 2021. 

 

63. Comrade Jiang Zemin’s report at the 16th National Congress of the CPC, Completing the Building of a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Creating New Progress for the Socialist Cause with Chinese Characteristics.

 

64. the Government of the People’s Republic of China, The Outline of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) for National Economic and Social Development and Vision 2035 of the People’s Republic of China, accessed September 1, 2021. 

 

65. The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, “The General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council Issued the Opinions on Further Reducing the Homework Load and Easing the Off-campus Tutoring Burden on Students in Compulsory Education”, accessed August 1, 2021.

 

66. The Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress to Amend the Education Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Government of the People’s Republic of China, accessed August 1, 2021. 

 

67. China’s lifelong education legislation has been included into the working plans of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the Ministry of Education and various Local People’s Congresses. The local regulations on the promotion of lifelong education having been enacted so far include the Regulations of Fujian Province on the Promotion of Lifelong Education, the Regulations of Shanghai Municipality on the Promotion of Lifelong Education, the Regulations of Hebei Province on the Promotion of Lifelong Education, the Regulations of Taiyuan City on the Promotion of Lifelong Education and the Regulations of Ningbo City on the Promotion of Lifelong Education. It is being ripe in China for the legislation in lifelong learning promotion laws. Gong Xianghe, “On the Guarantee of the Right to Lifelong Learning in the Codification of Education Law”, Journal of National Academy of Education Administration 1 (2022).