對話與爭議：從歐洲人權法圖像論臺灣施行人權公約之實質意涵

Dialogue and Bargain: Mapping the International Human Rights Law to Understand the Implementation of Universal Human Rights Conventions in Taiwan

臺灣陸續施行聯合國核心人權公約，兩最高院原則上亦接受其內國法效力，惟就其直接適用仍多有疑慮。本文以相關機制發展較為成熟之歐洲為例，闡釋國際人權法之動態圖像。各國獨立金字塔結構之法秩序，已無法解釋今日人權法之運作。普世價值只是諸多相對價值折衝之暫時結論，無礙其變遷與相對化；而相對價值已多方為普世滲透，惟藉由對話及爭議試圖重新自我定位。此動態之下，施行人權公約非關消極接受國際解釋，而係積極之「交易」或「議價」，在達成最新共識之前，遊走於合意與抗辯之間，構成「有序的多元」。臺灣欠缺司法審查由下而上形成共識之機制，惟其所本之集中司法審查之原型國家，法院合公約性審查已行之有年。本文以法國為例，說明法院如何與內國機關以及國際監督機制建立以人權為中心之對話地圖，包括體現國家重要價值決定以及捍衛特殊歷史制度。臺灣的21世紀國際自我定位，繫於法治人權。欲賦與施行國際人權公約實質意涵，藉由臺灣在地國家報告審查機制，現階段適足以允許臺灣參與普世人權內涵之形成，亦允許臺灣司法積極參與在地價值之確立。落實憲政人權，關鍵在於司法實踐中的權利論述，而非形式上的人權清單。

United Nations core human rights treaties are successively implemented in Taiwan. While their effect within the national legal order has been accepted, in principle, by both supreme courts, their direct application in individual cases is still pending. However, a legal order based on independent pyramid hierarchy can no longer explain the contemporary functioning of human rights law. This paper aims at drawing and interpreting the dynamic map of international human rights law, using the example of Europe where the mechanisms are relatively developed. On the one hand, the universal values are merely temporary conclusion drawn from conflicting views, without being frozen in time or fixed in space. On the other hand, the relative views are being penetrated by the universal values and being renewed through dialogue and bargain process. Implement human rights treaties consists of active dialogue and bargaining. Before a consensus can be reached, there are disputes and fragments around a same concept, constituting an “orderly plurality”. Implementation of human rights treaties creates a chance for Taiwan to develop its bottom-up consensus-building along with its yet monopolized judicial review. The experiences of France can well demonstrate how the conventionality review has contributed to a dialogue on human rights between different national and international institutions. On this map of dialogue, national courts do not have to sacrifice crucial national principles or specificity based on historical factors. Taiwan can hardly find a place in the international community, but its rapid evolution in rule of law and human rights protection can well position it there, for judges are the most “internationalizable” power. The future of human rights treaties resides in national practices, and Taiwan should effectively participate in the shaping of universal human rights norms. It is not a constitutionalized list of rights nor a real accession to a treaty that matters, but a judicial power involved in this dialogue map does.