全球性／別平權運動與國際人權法：突破文義解釋的界限

Beyond the Text: 'Global' SOGI Rights Movement versus 'Internationa' Human Rights Law

在國際人權保障的範疇中，經由各國商議、簽署且批准的多邊公約，經常成為公民社會賴以支持行動正常性的法源基礎。然而，這些處理人民與政府間關係的人權公約就是「國家同意」框架下的產物，因此任何人民的行動都將符合其統治者設定的遊戲規則才算符合（國際）法治的要求，這點不禁讓人感到矛盾——最有可能的人權侵害者卻被期待為人權的保障者。在國際公約解釋規則中以《維也納條約法公約》為主，其對於習慣法法典化的貢獻雖大，卻也令後維也納時代的國際法傾向嚴格的「實證主義」發展。因此本文希望能重提「世界主義」（cosmopolitanism），以檢視人權規範作為當代國際法基本原則的意義與內涵。本文將以這十餘載的全球性／別平權運動為例，以世界主義的視角重新詮釋國際人權法案（包含《世界人權宣言》及兩公約）中的「平等及不歧視條款」，以主張世界主義視角下的建構詮釋比法律實證主義更能令國際人權法即時面對跨國界、跨文化之社會變遷，且符合近代人權法濫觴之目的。 Under international human rights law, multilateral state-centric treaties, agreed upon and acceded to by states that are represented by their governments, are greatly relied on as the most significant instruments in dealing with, paradoxically, the relationship between governments and individuals. Regarding treaty interpretation, international lawyers are traditionally restricted by the rules provided in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This article however argues for a cosmopolitan perspective to replace international legal positivism to qualify the primary purpose of contemporary human rights norms. The former views the world as a global community accommodating inter-cultural diversities rather than an anarchic non-community of inter-national sovereignties. Such a contention sustains especially when it comes to a social transformation that occurs transnationally, from the bottom up, such as the global SOGI rights and justice social movement. Through a case study of the development of ‘equality and non-discrimination clause’ of the International Bill of Human Rights, I argue for the potential of such constructivism to reframe the rights of being human, out of its specialties in resisting state power, as adaptable to the changing social realities.