人權問責法制之比較法研究──以美國全球馬格尼茲基人權問責法與我國立法嘗試之評析為中心

A Comparative Legal Research of Magnitsky legislation: Focus on the US Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and Taiwan’s Proposed Bills

《全球馬格尼茲基人權問責法》賦予美國總統對於人權侵害與貪腐需負責任之外國人實施制裁，進而可以對制裁對象實施凍結資產與限制入境之措施。本文採取比較法與文獻分析的研究方法，旨在介紹自2016年以降，《美國全球馬格尼茲基人權問責法》之理論與實務，以及其為貫徹國際人權之保護與對侵害者究責所帶來之影響。本文也欲在美國為首的全球問責模式逐步國際化、全球化之際，評析臺灣的立法嘗試。本文結論認為基於該法所興起的人權問責模式，相較於傳統國別制裁在外交上更具備靈活性，能降低實施制裁所帶來的政治衝擊。此模式給予國會與民間參與制裁的空間，並保留了行政廣泛的裁量權，皆屬其制度上的優點。此外，人權問責模式更可以使臺灣加入世界各國在人權問責的共通制裁體系，促成更多的國際合作。再者，審視我國就人權問責模式之數則立法草案，儘管在細節上有所差異，惟臺灣國會所提出之立法草案與美國法有一定的相似之處，可以美國法制的理論與實務運作成果為借鏡。

The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act of 2016 authorizes the US President to impose sanctions on foreign persons responsible for gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or for corruption. According to the act, two types of restrictions, economic sanctions and visa restrictions, are authorized to impose targeted sanctions. This Article introduces the theory and real practice of the Magnitsky Act. This Act aims to protect international and domestic human rights and sanction human rights violators. Also, the Article would like to critique some drafts of Taiwan’s Magnitsky legislation based on the perspective of the comparative law method by reviewing similar legislation that several countries have passed. The Magnitsky Acts carry distinct advantages. I recognize that one of the merits of Magnitsky legislation is that it provides flexibility in addressing human rights or corruption matters, avoids deteriorating diplomatic relations, and alleviates challenges associated with country-specific sanctions regimes. The Global Magnitsky designations provide Congress and NGOs with standing to affect the executive branch’s sanctions decisions and maintain broad discretion for the executive branch at the same time. Besides, Taiwan’s Magnitsky legislation could coordinate sanctions with other countries by imposing similar sanctions and promote international cooperation by establishing mechanisms to improve human rights. Moreover, I reviewed the drafts of Taiwan’s Magnitsky legislation. Taiwan’s Magnitsky Act is very similar to the Global Magnitsky Act of the United States, except for minor variations between the standards and scope of sanctionable behavior. I agree that Taiwan’s similar legislation could enhance desired outcomes and measure effectiveness in disrupting human rights abuse or corruption. The Article concludes with some advice for Taiwan’s legislation as well.