不因無力履行契約義務而受監禁――《公民與政治權利國際公約》第11條之分析

Prohibition of Imprisonment for Inability to Fulfill Contractual Obligations: An Analysis of Article 11 of the ICCPR

《公民與政治權利國際公約》第11條規定不得僅因無力履行契約義務即予監禁，作為人身自由之特別保障。因而締約國不應有基於不履行契約義務而監禁之立法。
公約第11條所稱之契約義務，並不包括法定義務。然而，如果法律規定之義務違反其他權利保障，即使以法律規範契約義務之履行，且得以處以監禁，亦是違反公約第11條。而與民事債務有關的刑事犯罪並非契約義務，而是屬於刑事法律之範疇。所稱之監禁，不限於監獄或看守所，亦包括警察之拘留。所稱之僅因無力履行，不應做過度狹義之解釋，即使可能是無意清償，亦不應對債務人訴追及監禁。法院命令的罰款亦是公約第11條所稱之契約義務。
對於台灣而言，管收應可認為是公約第11條所稱之監禁。行政執行法之未履行公法上金錢給付義務，亦可被認為是契約義務。而行政執行法及強制執行法與有履行能力卻未履行而管收，基於公約第11條所稱之僅因無力履行，不應做過度狹義之解釋，即使可能是無意清償，亦不應對債務人訴追及監禁。而易服勞役已是我國替代罰金之穩定制度，亦可作為替代管收之選項。

Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that no one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation, serving as a specific guarantee of personal liberty. Accordingly, States Parties should not enact legislation permitting imprisonment solely on the basis of non-performance of a contract.
Under Article 11, the term“contractual obligation”does not include statutory or legal obligations. However, if a statutory obligation infringes upon other human rights, providing for imprisonment for its non-performance—even when such performance is regulated by law—would still constitute a violation of Article 11. Criminal offenses related to civil debts fall within the scope of criminal law and are not considered contractual obligations. The term“imprisonment”is not limited to jails or detention centers but also encompasses police custody. Moreover, the phrase“merely on the ground of inability to fulfill”should not be interpreted too narrowly; even in cases where there may be no intent to repay, the debtor should not be subject to prosecution or imprisonment. Court-ordered fines are likewise regarded as contractual obligations within the meaning of Article 11.
With regard to Taiwan, civil or administrative custody (guanshou) should be understood as“imprisonment”under Article 11. Failure to fulfill public-law monetary obligations under the Administrative Execution Act may also be regarded as a breach of a contractual obligation. Although the Administrative Execution Act and the Compulsory Execution Act permit custody of those who“have the means but refuse to pay,”Article 11 should not be interpreted narrowly. Even if a debtor is unwilling to pay, they should not face prosecution or imprisonment. Furthermore, the system of“conversion to labor”(yifu laoyi), an established alternative to fines in Taiwan, could serve as a viable substitute for administrative custody.