聯合國相關人權條約與日本國內法之研究──對日本入管法的檢討

Research on Relevant United Nations Human Rights Treaties and Japan’s Domestic Law: A Review of Japan’s Immigration Control Law

國際法上，條約的締約當事國，雖負有誠實遵守條約的義務，但上述的義務，在國內的法秩序中具體上是如何進行？則委諸於各國決定。上述的決定，由於各國的憲法體制各自不同，因此在國內法上履行國際法上的義務，亦有極大的差異。
此外，既然批准乃至加入條約，締約當事國，在條約的批准乃至加入時，理所當然地，條約的批准乃至加入後，亦持續地負有的義務是，為著不產生條約的違反，採取修正國內法令的立法措施。再者，大多數的人權條約，對於條約上的權利受到侵害的個人，皆規定應確保包括司法救濟手段在內的有效的救濟。在如同日本，條約具有國內法效力的國家中，人權條約的規範，即使對作為國家機關的司法機關而言，已是有效的法規範，因此司法機關，根據權利救濟相關條約的規定，被要求賦予對於條約上的權利侵害給予有效的救濟。法院，在人權條約規定違反主張被成為爭議點時，對此加以詳細查證，若有違反時，亦有責任性義務確保適切的救濟手段。
本文將針對條約在日本國內法中的序列，並指出一般性的論述後，檢討國際人權法中的「強制驅離與不遣返原則、「強制驅離、居留特別許可與家族生活的保護」、「在入國管理程序上，接受人道待遇的權利、不受恣意性收容的權利、關於收容合法性接受司法審查的權利」與日本「出入國管理及難民認定法」（以下簡稱為「入管法」）之間的法問題後，鑑於上述四項的法問題，可對台灣目前在缺乏難民法制的現狀下，在審議與訂定相關立法時，有比較法的參考價值，因此最後於結語中提出「對台灣的啟示」。

In international law, although the parties to a treaty have the obligation to abide by the treaty in good faith, how is the abovementioned obligation implemented in the domestic legal order? It is up to the countries to decide. The above-mentioned decisions, due to the different constitutional systems of various countries, have great differences in the implementation of obligations under international law in domestic law.
In addition, since ratification or accession to the treaty, the parties to the treaty, when ratifying or acceding to the treaty, of course, continue to have the obligation to adopt amendments of legislative measures in domestic law, in order not to cause a violation of the treaty. Furthermore, most human rights treaties stipulate effective remedies, including judicial remedies, should be ensured for individuals whose rights under the treaty have been violated. In countries like Japan, where treaties have the force of domestic law, the norms of human rights treaties are already valid legal norms even for the judiciary as a state organ. Therefore, the judiciary is required to confer effective remedies for violations of treaty rights. Courts, when claims of violations of human rights treaties are disputed, shall examine them in detail and, in the event of violations, also have a duty to ensure appropriate remedies.
This article will focus on the order of the treaty in Japan’s domestic law, and after pointing out the general discussion, review the “principle of forced eviction and non-refoulement,” “forced eviction, special permission for residence, and protection of family life” in international human rights law. “In the process of immigration management, the right to receive humane treatment, the right not to be detained arbitrarily, and the right to receive judicial review regarding the legality of detention” and Japan’s “Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law”, in view of the above four legal issues, it can be of reference value for comparative law when deliberating and enacting relevant legislation in the absence of a refugee legal system in Taiwan, so in the conclusion proposed “Enlightenment to Taiwan”.