雙重危險原則在國際人權法上的定位

The Role of the Principle of Double Jeopardy in International Human Right Law

由於國際潮流的趨勢，加上我國民主化的進展，使得積極追求加入各項國際人權公約，成為國人普遍的要求。儘管台灣基於種種因素的考慮，並未普遍簽署或加入所有的國際人權公約，但立法院2009 年3 月31 日批准《公民與政治權利國際公約》及《經濟社會文化權利國際公約》，同年法務部訂定兩個國際人權公約施行法，22 日公布、24 日生效，公約的內容已經變成我國國內法一部分。本文所要探討的主題著重於前述《公民與政治權利國際公約》中第14 條第7 項所規定的，向來被稱為「雙重危險之禁止」（一罪不兩罰或一事不再理）原則的主要精神、目的及內涵，其次，則兼論及至今仍舊存在於不同法系間及不同學者間的主要爭議問題，至於較為細部的累犯制度、利用犯罪前科量刑、案件同一性之認定以及外國裁判之承認與否，是否有牴觸一罪不二罰原則之嫌，則有待專文另行深入探究。

With the progress of democratization and global movement, effectively participate in international human rights treaty has been an important task for Taiwanese government. Though Taiwan is unable to officially enter international treaties, the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan has unilaterally ratified the ICCPR and ICESCR on March 31, 2009. The ministry of Justice has also incorporated those two treaties into our domestic legal system in the same year. This article focuses on the spirit, contents and interpretation of the principle of double jeopardy under paragraph 7, article 14 of the ICCPR. The article also sheds lights on related issues and controversy advocated among different schools of thought. Besides, the author intentionally leaves several issues involving the principle of double jeopardy such as repeated offender, previous conviction, recognition of foreign judgment, etc. to other articles.