Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/115064


Title: 社會生活中的非人道或侮辱處遇——《歐洲人權公約》第3條適用問題
Authors: 翁燕菁
Contributors: 政治學系
Keywords: 非人道或侮辱處遇;歐洲人權公約;人性尊嚴;水平效力;禁止歧視
inhuman or degrading treatments;European Convention on Human Rights;human dignity;horizontal effect;prohibition of discrimination.
Date: 2013
Issue Date: 2017-12-08 14:46:59 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 《歐洲人權公約》第3條禁止酷刑、非人道或侮辱處罰或待遇,具有絕對性,不保留任何裁量空間。然而在界定系爭事實是否達到第3條管轄範圍之「最低嚴重性」時,比例原則審查仍然適用。歐洲人權法院運用動態解釋,逐漸延展公約第3條保障範疇,而不限於古典意義的酷刑。 另方面,除了傳統的垂直效力外,歐洲人權法院也透過兒少保護肯定公約第3條具有水平效力,適用於私人行為,同時從公約第3條參照公約第1條發展出國家保護弱勢之積極義務。此一絕對保障下的積極義務,包含「盡其能事」原則。 歐洲人權公約保障體系雖然相對並不強調弱勢類型的認定,惟近十餘年來歐洲人權法院的比較法,日益重視國際人權保障趨勢的整合。除藉公約第14條禁止恣意差別待遇外,更藉重國際或歐洲機構、甚至非政府組織的報告,視個案啟動公約第3條,責成國家對系統性歧視與暴力行為之預防、調查與處罰義務。以種族歧視為例,若足以懷疑暴力含有種族動機,國家即有義務詳加調查,不得輕易視為一般暴力行為。 關於公約第3條介入傳統公約第8條保障領域的前提,相對於人性尊嚴,或許對格外弱勢者系統性歧視作為的存在更顯關鍵。終究,與人性尊嚴高度相關的生死與貧困問題,公約第3條似乎仍顯無能為力。
The article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading punishments or treatments, providing absolute protection without leaving any latitude. Nevertheless, while accessing whether an alleged fact reaches “a minimum level of severity” where Article 3 applies, there still goes a proportionality review. Through its famous dynamic interpretation, the European Court of Human Rights steadily extends the protection of Article 3 beyond the classical definition of torture. On the other hand, beyond the traditional vertical effect, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized the horizontal effect of Article 3 in its early jurisprudence on minor protection from acts of individuals. Read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Convention, Article 3 makes the States Parties accountable for protecting vulnerable persons. This positive obligation under an absolute provision includes the principle of “due diligence”. The system of protection under the European Convention on Human Rights has not been accurate on categorising vulnerable groups of individuals, but, since more than ten years, the comparatist approach of the Court incorporates increasingly the international tendency of human rights protection. Integrating sources from international or European institutions, including observations from NGOs, the Court may apply Article 3 in cases regarding systematic discriminatory practices as to require States Parties to fulfil their positive obligation of prevention, investigation and punishment. Cases raising serious concerns over racial discrimination can be demonstrating examples: as long as racial discrimination seems to have motivated the disputed violence, States Parties must take it serious and proceed to effective investigation. Concerning the key to activate the absolute protection of Article 3 in ratione materiae traditionally falling within the ambit of Article 8, the existence of systematic practices based on discrimination against particular vulnerable groups of persons seems to be more important than a pure question of human dignity. At last but not least, questions highly relevant to human dignity, for instance living or dying in dignity or extreme poverty, have not yet found their way to be covered by this absolute protection.
Relation: 執行起迄:2013/08/01~2014/10/31
102-2410-H-004-232
Data Type: report
Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 國科會研究計畫

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
102-2410-H-004-232.pdf1190KbAdobe PDF286View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing