性別平等之內涵與定位：兩公約與憲法之比較

Conceptualizing and Locating Gender Equality: ICCPR, ICESCR, and the Constitution in Comparison

《公民與政治權利國際公約》及《經濟社會與文化權利國際公約》（簡稱兩公約）均非常重視性別平等的保障，除將性別平等規定在諸多條文外，相關監督機制亦透過一般性意見，將性別平等落實在各個權利的保障之中。和兩公約相同的是，我國憲法亦設有性別平等保障的規定。2009年，我國批准了兩公約且制定施行法，正式將兩公約所保障的權利，納入我國法律體系之中。在此背景下，值得加以探討的是，兩公約與我國憲法在性別平等保障上的概念是否一致？兩公約與我國憲法在保障範圍及規範內涵上是否有所差異？職司憲法解釋的司法院大法官要如何在性別平等案件中，面對前述問題、並作出適當解釋？為回應這些問題，本文探討兩公約與我國憲法在性別平等保障基本概念上的異同，爬梳整理兩公約與我國憲法在性別平等上的保障範圍及規範內涵，並加以比較。在基本概念的比較上，本文發現兩公約與我國憲法均並未明確將平等定位為權利或原則，但均保留平等作為權利或原則在解釋及適用上的可能性。此外，兩公約對性別平等採取實質的平等觀，我國大法官在相關案件上亦開始採取類似的觀點。最後，相較於兩公約將性（sex）的平等保障延伸到性別、性傾向與性別認同，我國憲法的用語略顯狹隘，還須透過進一步的解釋。在性別平等的保障範圍與規範內涵上，本文發現兩公約較為完善且多元，而我國憲法不論在規範與解釋上，都還有許多可以強化的空間。為強化性別平等在我國的保障，本文主張司法院大法官應參照兩公約及相關的一般性意見，以強化性別平等的保障並豐富相關論述。最後，本文也主張在憲法保障之外，還須有更多相對應的法律機制，以具體落實性別平等的保障。

Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter two Covenants) guarantee the equality between men and women. In addition, the two Covenants have, through the General Comments, extended sex equality to a variety of intersected rights and freedoms. At the domestic level, the Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) also provides the protection of sex and gender equality. In 2009, Taiwan ratified the two Covenants and passed the Implementation Act rendering the rights guaranteed by the two Covenants part of the domestic law. Against this backdrop, it is of paramount importance to analyze whether the two Covenants and the Constitution share the same guarantee of the equality between men and women; to what extent the Constitution has reflected fully the requirements of the two Covenants; if any discrepancy exists between the Constitution and the two Covenants, in what ways the Constitutional Court may provide interpretations for reconciliation. To answer these questions, this Article compares the Constitution and the two Covenants on their respective basic conceptualizations of equality between men and women and their protected scopes and ramifications. In the comparison of basic conceptualizations, this Article finds that neither the two Covenants nor the Constitution clearly stipulates the equality between men and women as a right that is independently sought or as a principle that is applied to all rights. Besides, the two Covenants adopt substantive equality, a view that has recently been endorsed by the Constitutional Court through constitutional interpretations. Last but not the least, while the two Covenants has extended the protection of equality from sex to gender, to sexual orientation and to gender identity, the Constitution has not provided for similar extension and thus requires further elaboration. In the comparison on the protected scopes and ramifications, this Article finds that the guarantee of sex and gender equality by the two Covenants is of broader scopes and with more dynamic ramifications. In contrast, relevant constitutional provisions, interpretations and statutes in Taiwan require further improvement. Based upon these findings, this Article suggests that the Constitutional Court refer to the two Covenants and the General Comments in interpreting equality on sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity, and that relevant statutes stipulated with more concrete and detailed measures to implement sex and gender equality be enacted promptly.