Legal Guarantee Of The National Symbol

The national symbol is generally stipulated by the Constitution and the law and represents the sovereignty,independence and dignity of the country.It reflects the historical traditions,national spirits,and even the state and political system of a country.It is also conducive to enhancing the national pride and patriotism of the people.The national symbols mainly include the national flag,the national anthem,the national emblem,the capital,the seal of the state,and the National Day.Looking at the constitutions of the world,most of them stipulate the national symbol,but the extension of the national symbol is different,but most of them include the national flag.the national anthem,the national emblem and the capital.It is particularly important to build a national community by establishing a national identity of a country's nationals,enhancing its cohesiveness and centripetal force to cope with the current environment of the world.There are many ways in which the national community is constructed.The national symbol plays an important role in bringing the relationship between the state and the people and maintaining the authority and dignity of the national symbol in the construction of the national community.In the past,historical data on the study of national symbols,most of them are studied from the perspectives of history and political science,but few research results from the perspective of constitutional theory appear.In this paper,the author attempts to study the national symbol from the perspective of constitutional law.This article is divided into four chapters:The first chapter is an overview of the national symbol.This chapter firstly compares and analyzes the definitions of national symbol in Chinese and foreign literature.Secondly,it combines the constitutional texts of various countries and conducts comparative research on the extension of national symbol.Then it combines the above studies to summarize the value,function and constitutional significance of national symbols.The second chapter is the constitutional text on the national symbol.The author first sorts out the historical evolution of the national symbol.In the process of combing,in order to make the historical evolution of the national symbol more clear,the author divides the constitutional texts studied into two categories:capitalist countries and socialist countries.Then the author further studied the provisions of the national constitutional texts of Chinese and foreign countries regarding the national symbols.The third chapter is the study of the legal guarantee of the national symbol.In this chapter,the author first selects the United States,Japan,and Germany as representatives to analyze the legal guarantees of the relevant national symbol.Then the author conducted a study on the legal guarantee system of China's national symbol.Compared with foreign countries,the legal guarantee system of China's national symbol is more complete and sound.From constitutional to constitutional documents,to civil law,commercial law,criminal law and public security management and punishment regulations,they provide legal protection for national symbol.The fourth chapter is the study of judicial protection of national symbol.In this chapter,the author selects the first case of the US burning flag,the case of the Japanese female teacher who had refused to perform the piano accompaniment for the national anthem,the case of the editor of a German magazine who had edited the national anthem,the case of Ng Kung Siu and Lee Kin Yun who had insulted the national flag and the regional flag in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the case of Yang's adaptation of the national anthem in Shanghai were compared and analyzed.In view of the particularity of the national symbol,almost all cases involving such cases will cause an argument that penalizing such behavior will lead to restrictions on the basic rights of the perpetrators' freedom of expression,freedom of thought and conscience,and freedom of art.The judgment results of the above cases are different.The author believes that the reason for the different judgments is due to the differences in the court's review path leading to the application of the proportionality principle and the standard of the case balance principle.