外國人可否享有社會給付受給之權利──評釋日本永住外國人準用或適用生活保護法訴訟事件

Can Foreigners Enjoy the Right to Social Rights: Case of the Japan's Public Assistance Law to Permanent Foreigner Resident

現代人權理論除了自由權保障外，也日益重視社會權之保障，然而對於外國人是否享有社會給付受給之權利，因涉及國家財政以及政策之選擇，要如何調整以及該保障到何種程度，各國間不一而足。而本文主要檢討一起日本有關具有永住權資格的外國人是否可適用生活保護法（相當於我國的社會救助法）保障的案例，蓋因日本為兩公約等國際人權公約的締約國，國際人權條約上的義務或多或少也已影響到日本法院的若干判決，而本起案件在福岡高等法院2011年11月15日判決中，更首次判示日本永住外國人應與日本人同樣皆為生活保護法所保護之對象。然而，之後的日本最高法院第二小法庭於2014年7月18日時，撤銷了福岡高等法院2011年11月15日判決，並判示了基於現行的生活保護法，外國人並不擁有生活保護受給「權」。但最高法院的解釋主要理由僅是著眼於法條上的明文為「國民」二字，故無法找出可以導出肯認外國人享有生活保護受給權的法律根據。而本文即對此等「文言根據說」是否妥當進行檢討外，亦對相關下級審所揭示的國際人權條約的國家義務乃至於現今全球化下的社會保障以及人權享有主體的意涵，進行更進一步的釐清。

Modern human rights theory not only protects the right of liberty but also guarantees social rights. However, whether foreigners can enjoy social rights or social benefits depends on national financial and policy choices, as a result, the differences between the countries were huge. This paper is a review and analysis on whether a foreigner with permanent residency status can apply the protection of the Public Assistance Act. Japan is a party to national human rights conventions such as the ICCPR & ICESCR, its obligations under international human rights treaties have more or less affected several Japanese court judgments. In the judgment of the Fukuoka High Court of Japan on November 15, 2011, for the first time, it was stated that foreign residents in Japan should be protected by the Public Assistance Act. just like Japanese. However, on July 18, 2014, the Second Small Court of the Supreme Court of Japan revoked the Fukuoka High Court’s judgment of November 15, 2011, and ruled that, foreigners inability to apply or shall apply mutatis to Public Assistance Act. The main reason for the explanation of the Supreme Court of Japan is only to focus on the word ’’All citizens’’ in the article of Public Assistance Act. Therefore, there is no way to find a legal basis that can recognize foreigners and enjoy the public assistance. This article not only reviews the appropriateness of the Japan’s Supreme Court Decision of July 18, 2014, but also to understand what is the meaning of the national obligations of international human rights treaties, as well as the subject of social security and human rights enjoyment under globalization.