請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/2401
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 許宗力(Tzong-Li Hsu) | |
dc.contributor.author | Li-Yu Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃立宇 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-13T06:39:48Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2017-08-10 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-13T06:39:48Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2017-08-10 | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2017-08-05 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
專書 內政部,《中華民國100年身心障礙者生活狀況及各項需求評估調查報告》,2013年1月。 王澤鑑,《人格權法》,2012年1月。 王澤鑑,《民法總則》,第5版,2014年2月。 台灣社會法與社會政策學會,《社會法》,第2版,2015年1月。 台灣精神醫學會,《司法精神醫學手冊》,2014年6月。 司法院統計處,《中華民國105年司法統計年報》,2017年。 吳庚、陳淳文,《憲法理論與政府體制》,第4版,2016年9月。 吳建昌,《正常與瘋狂的天秤:談精神疾病與司法鑑定》,2016年5月。 李震山,《人性尊嚴與人權保障》,第3版,2009年2月。 李震山,《多元、寬容與人權保障—以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心》,第2版,2007年8月。 法務部,《民法成年監護制度之研究》,2002年。 姜皇池,《國際公法導論》,第3版,2013年2月。 翁逸泓、廖福特,《私生活之權利-探索歐洲,反思臺灣》,2014年12月。 國立臺灣大學法律學院、台大法學基金會(編),《德國民法(上) 總則編、債編、物權編》,第2版,2016年10月。 國立臺灣大學法律學院、台大法學基金會(編),《德國民法(下) 親屬編、繼承編》,第2版,2016年10月。 許宗力,《法與國家權力(二)》,2007年1月。 許宗力,《憲法與法治國行政》,第2版,2007年1月。 陳惠馨,《民法親屬編-理論與實務》,2016年3月。 黃宗樂、郭振恭、陳棋炎(合著),《民法親屬新論》,第12版,2014年10月。 黃舒芃,《框架秩序下的國家權力-公法學術論文集》,2013年9月。 黃詩淳、陳自強(編),《高齡化社會法律之新挑戰:以財產管理為中心》,2014年2月。 廖福特,《聯合國與人權保障:監督機制、條約內涵、台灣實踐》,2013年5月。 戴炎輝、戴東雄、戴瑀如(合著),《親屬法》,2014年8月。 論文 Lech Garlicki (著),翁燕菁(譯),〈歐洲人權法院與「評斷餘地」原則-人權事務中尚存幾分國家裁量空間?〉,收錄於:李建良(編),《2010行政管制與行政爭訟》,2011年11月,頁97-128。 王玉葉,〈歐洲人權法院審理原則-國家裁量餘地原則〉,《歐美研究》,第37卷第3期,2007年9月,頁485-511。 王自雄,〈人權兩公約之內國法化暨其施行法之實施-從國際法的內化與人權在我國憲政體制下之法律地位論起〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,第164期,2010年11月,頁113-122。 王國羽,〈聯合國身心障礙者權利公約對我國的啟示〉,《社區發展季刊》,第123期,2008年9月,頁106-116。 王國羽、呂朝賢,〈世界衛生組織身心障礙人口定義概念之演進:兼論我國身心障礙人口定義系統問題與未來修正方向〉,《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,第8卷第2期,2004年12月,頁193-235。 李立如,〈成年監護制度與法院功能的演進-以受監護人權益保障為中心〉,《東海大學法學研究》,第45期,2015年4月,頁99-170。 李建良,〈經濟管制的平等思維-兼評大法官有關職業暨營業自由之憲法解釋〉,《政大法學評論》,第102期,2008年4月,頁71-157。 李建良,〈論國際條約的國內法效力與法位階定序-國際條約與憲法解釋之關係的基礎課題〉,收錄於:廖福特(編),《憲法解釋之理論與實務》,第八輯,上冊,2014年7月,頁175-275。 林秀雄,〈論我國新修正之成年監護制度〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第164期,2009年1月,頁139-156。 林明昕,〈基本國策之規範效力及其對社會正義之影響〉,《臺大法學論叢》,第45卷特刊,2016年11月,頁1305-1358。 林誠二,〈民法總則禁治產宣告修正草案-成年監護制度之評析〉,《法令月刊》,第59卷第1期,2008年1月,頁31-40。 林誠二,〈受輔助宣告人之行為能力與責任能力〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,第143期,2010年1月,頁149-154。 孫迺翊,〈無障礙/可行性、合理調整與平等不歧視原則:從身心障礙者權利公約檢視我國憲法及身心障礙者權益保障法之平等原則內涵〉,《臺大法學論叢》,第45卷特刊,2016年11月,頁1163-1228。 徐揮彥,〈「公民與政治權利國際公約」與「經濟、社會與文化權利國際公約」在我國最高法院與最高行政法院適用之研究〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,第43卷特刊,2014年11月,頁839-909。 紐文英,〈美國智能和發展障礙協會2010年定義的內容和內涵〉,《特殊教育發展期刊》,第49期,2010年6月,頁21-32。 張文貞,〈國際人權公約與憲法解釋:匯流的模式、功能與台灣實踐〉,發表於:司法院主辦,《司法院大法官104年度學術研討會》,2015年12月,頁1-26。 張文貞,〈演進中的法:一般性意見作為國際人權公約的權威解釋〉,《台灣人權學刊》,第1卷第2期,2012年6月,頁25-43。 張文貞,〈憲法與國際人權法的匯流-兼論我國大法官解釋之實踐〉,收錄於:廖福特(編),《憲法解釋之理論與實務》第六輯,上冊,2009年7月,頁223-272。 陳怡凱,〈國際人權公約之內國效力-以公民與政治權公約暨社會文化權公約施行法為例〉,收錄於:台灣法學會(編),《台灣法學新課題(八)》,2010年10月,頁27-68。 陳怡凱,〈國際人權法在我國法院之適用-以精障者是否可處死刑為例〉,《憲政時代》,第40卷第3期,2015年1月,頁311-359。 陳隆志、廖福特,〈國際人權公約與國內法化之探討〉,《國家政策季刊》,第1卷第2期,2002年12月,頁33-56。 陳愛娥,〈立法機關的社會政策形成自由與平等原則〉,《台灣本土法學雜誌》,第14期,2000年9月,頁89-96。 陳聰富,〈人格權的保護〉,《月旦法學教室》,第132期,2013年10月,頁42-53。 陳聰富,〈自然人的行為能力及住所〉,《月旦法學教室》,第129期,2013年6月,頁42-51。 黃昭元,〈2014年憲法發展回顧〉,《臺大法學論叢》,第44卷特刊,2015年11月,頁1395-1437。 黃昭元,〈平等權案件之司法審查標準〉,收錄於:廖福特(編)《憲法解釋之理論與實務》第六輯,下冊,2009年7月,頁551-580。 黃昭元,〈平等權審查標準的選擇問題:兼論比例原則在平等權審查上的適用可能〉,《臺大法學論叢》,第37卷第4期,2008年12月,頁253-284。 黃昭元,〈臺灣法律發展回顧:憲法〉,《臺大法學論叢》,第39卷第2期,2010年6月,頁5-30。 黃舒芃,〈國際及區際人權公約在憲法解釋中扮演的角色:兼評司法院釋憲實務對國際及區際人權公約之看待與引用方式〉,發表於:司法院主辦《司法院大法官一0四年度學術研討會-人權公約與我國憲法解釋》,2015年12月,頁29-96。 黃詩淳,〈從心理學的老化理論探討臺灣之成年監護制度〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第256期,2016年9月,頁69-81。 黃詩淳,〈從身心障礙者權利公約之觀點評析臺灣之成年監護制度〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第233期,2014年10月,頁136-152。 黃詩淳,〈障礙者人權與成年監護制度〉,《人權會訊》,第117期,2015年7月,頁29-34。 黃詩淳、吳英傑、詹朝傑、陳文通、郭躍民,〈「監護宣告之實務與理論之對話」座談會〉,《人權會訊》,第115期,2015年1月,頁17-36。 廖福特,〈批准聯合國兩個人權公約及制訂施行法之評論〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第174期,2009年11月,頁223-229。 廖福特,〈從「醫療」、「福利」到「權利」-身心障礙者權利保障之新發展〉,《中研院法學期刊》,第2期,2008年3月,頁167-210。 廖福特,〈憲法與國際人權條約-陌生的互動關係〉,收錄於:台灣法學會(編)《廿一世紀憲政風雲》,2004年1月,頁207-254。 鄧衍森,〈國際法的規範向度〉,《司法新聲》,第104期,2012年11月,頁7-19。 鄧學仁,〈我國制定意定監護制度之芻議〉,《臺北大學法學論叢》,第90期,2014年6月,頁91-157。 戴瑀如,〈初探德國成年輔助法-兼論我國成年監護制度〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第167期,2009年4月,頁137-150。 戴瑀如,〈論德國成年監護制度之人身管理-兼論程序法上之相關規定〉,《臺北大學法論叢》,第90期,2014年6月,頁159-209。 英文文獻 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (2010). Intellectual Disability, 11th Ed., Washington DC, USA: AAIDD. American Bar Association (1961). In Lindman, F. T. & McIntyre, D. M. Jr. (Eds) The Mentally Disabled and the Law: the Report of the American Bar Foundation on the Rights of the Mentally Ill. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press. Bach, M. (2009). The Right to Legal Capacity under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Key Concepts and Directions from Law Reform. Canada: Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society. Bond, M. (2010). The Council of Europe and Human Rights. France: Council of Europe Publishing. Council of Europe (2011). Principles Concerning Continuing Powers of Attorney and Advance Directives for Incapacity, Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)11 and Explanatory Memorandum. France: Council of Europe Publishing. Council of Europe (2012). Who Gets to Decide? Right to Legal Capacity for Persons with Intellectual and Psychosocial Disabilities. France: Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (1999). Explanatory Memorandum: Recommendation Rec(99)4 on the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Principles Concerning the Legal Protection of Incapable Adults. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (1999). Recommendation No. R(99)4 on the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Principles Concerning the Legal Protection of Incapable Adults. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2006). Recommendation Rec(2006)5 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Council of Europe Action Plan to Promote the Rights and Participation of People with Disabilities in Society: Improving the Quality of Life of People with Disabilities in Europe 2006-2015. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2009). Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)11 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Principles Concerning Continuing Powers of Attorney and Advance Directives for Incapacity. CRPD Committee (2010). Initial Reports Submitted by States Parties in Accordance with Article 35 of the Convention: Spain. CRPD/C/ESP/1. CRPD Committee (2011). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Spain. CRPD/C/ESP/CO/1. CRPD Committee (2011). Initial Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 35 of the Convention: Hungary. CRPD/C/HUN/1. CRPD Committee (2012). Concluding Observations on the Initial Periodic Report of Hungary, Adopted by the Committee at Its Eighth Session (17-28 September 2012). CRPD/C/HUN/CO/1. CRPD Committee (2012). Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of China, Adopted by the Committee at Its Eighth Session (17–28 September 2012). CRPD/C/CHN/CO/1. CRPD Committee (2012). Initial Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 35 of the Convention: Sweden. CRPD/C/SWE/1. CRPD Committee (2013). Initial Reports of States Parties Due in 2011: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. CRPD/C/GBR/1. CRPD Committee (2013). Initial Reports of States Parties: Denmark. CRPD/C/DNK/1. CRPD Committee (2013). Initial Reports of States Parties: Germany. CRPD/C/DEU/1. CRPD Committee (2013). Initial Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 35 of the Convention: Belgium. CRPD/C/BEL/1. CRPD Committee (2014). Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Belgium. CRPD/C/BEL/CO/1. CRPD Committee (2014). Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Denmark. CRPD/C/DNK/CO/1. CRPD Committee (2014). Initial Report of State Parties Due in 2012: Lithuania. CRPD/C/LTU/1. CRPD Committee (2014). Initial Report of State Parties Due in 2012: Ukraine. CRPD/C/UKR/1. CRPD Committee (2015). Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of the European Union. CRPD/C/EU/CO/1. CRPD Committee (2015). Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Ukraine. CRPD/C/UKR/CO/1. CRPD Committee (2015). Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Germany. CRPD/C/DEU/CO/1. CRPD Committee (2015). Initial Report of State Parties Due in 2012: Bulgaria. CRPD/C/BGR/1. CRPD Committee (2015). Initial Report of State Party Due in 2014: Poland. CRPD/C/POL/1. CRPD Committee (2015). Initial Report Submitted by State Party under Article 35 of the Convention: Estonia. CRPD Committee (2015). Initial Reports of State Parties Due in 2011: Italy. CRPD/C/ITA/1. CRPD Committee (2015). Initial Reports of States Parties Due in 2015: Norway. CRPD/C/NOR/1. CRPD Committee (2015). Initial Reports of States Parties Due in 2015: Greece. CRPD/C/GRC/1. CRPD Committee (2016). Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Lithuania. CRPD/C/LTU/CO/1. CRPD Committee (2016). Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Italy. CRPD/C/ITA/CO/1. CRPD Committee (2016). Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Portugal, CRPD/C/PRT/CO. Dhanda, A. (2007). Legal Capacity in the Disability Rights Convention: Stranglehold of the Past Lodestar for the Future? Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 34, 429-462. European Commission (2008). First High Level Group Report on Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. European Commission (2010). European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: a Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe. COM(2010) 636 final. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009). Country Thematic Reports on the Fundamental Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities and Persons with Mental Health Problems: Denmark. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009). Country Thematic Reports on the Fundamental Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities and Persons with Mental Health Problems: France. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009). Country Thematic Reports on the Fundamental Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities and Persons with Mental Health Problems: Italy. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009). Country Thematic Reports on the Fundamental Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities and Persons with Mental Health Problems: Germany. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009). Country Thematic Reports on the Fundamental Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities and Persons with Mental Health Problems: Sweden. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009). Country Thematic Reports on the Fundamental Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities and Persons with Mental Health Problems: Portugal. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009). Country Thematic Reports on the Fundamental Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities and Persons with Mental Health Problems: Greece. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009). Country Thematic Reports on the Fundamental Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities and Persons with Mental Health Problems: Netherland. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009). Country Thematic Reports on the Fundamental Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities and Persons with Mental Health Problems: Austria. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2013). Legal Capacity of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities and Persons with Mental Health Problems. Luxembourg: European Union. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2015). Implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Glen, K. B. (2012). Changing Paradigms: Mental Capacity, Legal Capacity, Guardianship, and Beyond. Columbia Human Right Review, 44-1, 93-170. Huang, S. C. (2016). Adult Guardianship in Taiwan: a Focus on Guardian Financial Decision-Making and the Family’s Role. Journal of International Aging Law and Policy, 9, 127-150. Johns, A. F. (1999). Ten Years After: Where is the Constitutional Crisis with Procedural Safeguards and Due Process in Guardianship Adjudication? Elder Law Journal, 7-1, 33-152. Kanter, A. S. (2015). The Development of Disability Rights under International Law. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Kelsen, H. (1971). What Is Justice? California, USA: University of California Press. Kelsen, H. (2005). Pure Theory of Law. New Jersey, USA: The Lawbook Exchange. Kelsen, H. (2012). Principle of International Law. New Jersey, USA: The Lawbook Exchange. Keys, M. (2009). Legal Capacity Law Reform in Europe: An Urgent Challenge. In G. Quinn and L. Waddington (Eds.), European Yearbook of Disability Law, 1, 59-87, Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. Kilkelly, U. (2001). The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life. Germany: Council of Europe. Lewis, O. (2012). Stanev v. Bulgaria: On the Pathway to Freedom, Human Rights Brief, 19, 2-7, 72. Lipp, V., & Winn, J. O. (2011). Guardianship and Autonomy: Foes or Friends? Journal of International Law and Policy, 5, 41-56. Loucaides, L. G. (2007). The European Convention on Human Rights (Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff). Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (2013). Legal Capacity in Europe: a Call Action to Governments and to the EU. Budapest, Hungary: Mental Disability Advocacy Centre. Nils Muižnieks (2015). Report by Nils Muižnieks: Following His Visit to Bulgaria from 9 to 11 February 2015. Commissioner of Human Rights of the Council of Europe. CommDH(2015)12. Nils Muižnieks (2015). Report by Nils Muižnieks: Following His Visit to Norway from 19 to 23 January 2015. Commissioner of Human Rights of the Council of Europe. CommDH(2015)9. Owen, F., Griffiths, D., Tarulli, D. & Murphy, J (2009). Historical and Theoretical Foundations of the Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities: Setting the Stage. In F. Owen and D. Griffiths (Eds.), Challenges to the Human Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Perlin, M. L. (2013). “Striking for the Guardianship and Protectors of the Mind”: the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Mental Disabilities and the Future of the Guardianship Law. Penn State Law Review, 117:4, 1159-1190. Quinn, G. & Degener, T. (2002). Humans and Disability: the Current Use and Future Potential of United Nations Human Rights Instruments in the Context of Disability. New York and Geneva: United Nations. Quinn, G. (2009). A Short Guide to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In G. Quinn and L. Waddington (Eds.), European Yearbook of Disability Law, 1, 89-114. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. Quinn, G. (2009). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Toward a New International Politics of Disability. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 15:1, 33-52. Roagna, I. (2012). Protecting the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Royer, A. (2010). The Council of Europe. France: Council of Europe Publishing. Schulze, M. (2010). Understanding the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Lyon, France: Handicap international. Traustadóttir, R. (2009). Disability Studies, the Social Model and Legal Development. In O. Arnardóttir and G. Quinn (Eds.), The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian Perspectives, 3-16. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. United Nations (2006). Report of the International Law Commission. Fifty-eight session. A/61/10. World Health Organization (2002). Toward a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health. http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf World Health Organization (2005). WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. World Health Organization (2011). World Report on Disability 2011. http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf World Health Organization (2013). Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/89966/1/9789241506021_eng.pdf?ua=1 World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/bluebook.pdf 網路資料 中時電子報:http://www.chinatimes.com/ 中華民國智障者家長總會:http://www.papmh.org.tw/ 司法院大法官解釋:http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/p03.asp 立法院議案查詢系統:http://misq.ly.gov.tw/MISQ/IQuery/misq5000Action.action 英國法律資訊中心:http://www.bailii.org/ 德國聯邦司法及消費者保護部:http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ 歐洲人權法院判決資料庫:http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{'documentcollectionid2':['GRANDCHAMBER','CHAMBER']} 歐洲理事會:http://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/home 歐盟法律資料庫:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html 歐盟基本權利署:http://fra.europa.eu/en 衛生福利部社會及家庭署:http://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/default.aspx 衛生福利部統計處:http://www.mohw.gov.tw/cht/DOS/ 總統府網站:http://www.president.gov.tw/ 聯合國公約網站:https://treaties.un.org/pages/Home.aspx?clang=_en 聯合國身心障礙者權利委員會:http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/CRPDIndex.aspx | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/2401 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 我國於2014年將聯合國身心障礙者權利公約納入法律體系,其中第12條依據CRPD委員會第1號一般性意見之詮釋,為實現輔助決定制,締約國不應剝奪障礙者之人格被法律平等承認之權利。我國現行民法監護制度(包括輔助宣告)之法律效果係對精神障礙或智能障礙者之法律能力為限制或剝奪,嚴重影響障礙者憲法權利之行使,屬於委員會所定義之替代決定制。對於公約義務之履行,本文關注的是,如何透過憲法解釋之方式調和公約與國內制度之落差,完成法律能力之憲法實踐。
對於公約實踐所涉及之監護議題,本文取逕歐洲經驗,藉由歐洲締約國之國家報告與委員會結論性意見,分析公約第12條在歐洲之履行現況以及國家對於法律能力之觀點;並介紹歐洲理事會之相關建議,梳理出作為歐洲共識之監護體系;最後,從歐洲人權法院在個案中對歐洲人權公約之解釋與適用,發現歐洲經驗與公約價值之落差。並在此基礎上,從三個面向對問題意識做出回應:首先,回應部分學說認為我國因未完成法定加入程序而不受國際法拘束之觀點,本文從「單方宣告」之國際法概念否認此看法,從而肯認我國負有履行公約之國際法義務;其次,對於「憲法實踐」之意義,本文從釋憲實務之分析,整理出CRPD得做為憲法解釋參考之結論,其意義在於透過憲法解釋之方式,確認「身心障礙者人格權」之憲法基礎,建構適於輔助決定制實現之法制環境;最後,透過CRPD第12條與歐洲經驗之輔助,以憲法第22條身心障礙者人格權作為審查基準,對民法監護制度與比例原則、正當法律程序與平等原則進行合憲性審查,從而得出違憲之結論,本文並提出三點建議作為日後修法參考。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has been incorporated into the Taiwan legal system since 2014, above all, article 12 of CRPD, according to General Comment No. 1 of CRPD Committee, in order to implement the supported decision-making, the states parties should refrain from any actions that deprives persons with disabilities of the right to equal recognition before the law. The legal effect of the commencement of guardianship under Civil Code of Taiwan, including the commencement of assistance, deprives or restricts the legal capacity of persons with mental disability or intellectual disability, intervening the exercise of the rights under Constitution of R.O.C., and thus belongs to the so called substitute decision-making as defined by the CRPD Committee. The topic of this thesis is to reconcile the gap between article 12 of CRPD and the domestic legal system through the constitutional interpretation to fulfill the constitutional implementation of legal capacity under CRPD.
To discuss the implementation of CRPD concerning the guardianship system, the thesis starts from the European experiences, analyzes the implementation under article 12 of CRPD in European countries and their cognition to the legal capacity through the reports of European states parties and the concluding observations of CRPD Committee; introduces the recommendations of the Council of Europe as the common standard of European community; and finally, finds out the gap between the European experiences and the conventional value through the interpretation and the application of the European Court of Human Right on the European Convention on Human Rights. On the comparative ground, the thesis answers the topic in three dimensions: first, replying the cognition which argues that the Taiwan legal system is not subject to CRPD under international law, because the Taiwan government failed to accomplish the conventional accession procedure, the thesis denies the viewpoint by the notion of unilateral declaration under international law, and thus, the Taiwan government does have the conventional obligation to perform CRPD; second, to the meaning of the ‘‘constitutional implementation’’, the thesis analyzes the constitutional interpretations of Judicial Yuan, finds out that the international conventions may have the value of reference in practice, its significance is, through the constitutional interpretation, to confirm the constitutional foundation of the personality rights of persons with disabilities, and thus, to constitute the legal environment suitable for the implementation of supported decision-making; and last, with the cognition of article 12 of CRPD and the European experiences, the thesis examines the constitutionality of the guardianship system of Civil Code under the personality rights of persons with disabilities in article 22 of the R.O.C. Constitution with the principle of proportionality, due process of law, and the principle of equality, and finds out the conclusion on unconstitutionality, the thesis also provides three suggestions for the upcoming legal reform. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-13T06:39:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R02a21020-1.pdf: 4017763 bytes, checksum: 5e2befde691e818f95c49637e61808d5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 I
摘要 III Abstract IV 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與問題意識 1 壹、研究動機 1 貳、問題意識 6 一、研究前提:以身心障礙者權利公約第12條為研究基準 6 (一)第1號一般性意見對公約第12條之詮釋 8 (二)關於公約第12條是否允許對法律能力為限制之爭辯 11 (三)對於一般性意見拘束力之探討 13 二、CRPD第12條法律能力之憲法實踐 15 (一)是否實踐 16 (二)為何實踐 16 (三)如何實踐 17 第二節 研究範圍與本文架構 19 壹、研究範圍 19 一、以憲法實踐為主軸 19 二、以歐洲經驗為借鏡 19 貳、本文架構 21 第三節 名詞定義與文獻回顧 22 壹、名詞定義 22 一、身心障礙 22 二、智能障礙與精神障礙 26 (一)智能障礙 27 (二)精神障礙 31 三、監護制度 33 貳、文獻回顧 35 第二章 CRPD與歐洲國家監護法制 39 第一節 歐洲國家對CRPD第12條之實踐 40 壹、比利時 40 貳、保加利亞 42 叁、法國 44 肆、德國 47 伍、匈牙利 50 陸、立陶宛 52 柒、挪威 54 捌、西班牙 57 玖、瑞典 59 拾、烏克蘭 60 拾壹、英國 62 拾貳、歐盟對CRPD第12條之實踐 64 一、歐盟事務管轄原則 64 二、歐盟對CRPD第12條之權限與實踐 65 第二節 CRPD第12條在實踐上所面臨之困難 69 壹、多數國家容許對法律能力為限制或剝奪 69 貳、部分國家欠缺履行公約第12條之善意 73 第三章 CRPD與歐洲人權公約 77 第一節 歐洲理事會對身心障礙者法律能力之建議 79 壹、部長委員會1999年第4號建議 79 一、實體原則 79 二、程序原則 81 三、R(99)4與CRPD之比較 82 貳、部長委員會2009年第11號建議 84 一、代理權授予 85 二、事前指示 90 三、Rec(2009)11與CRPD之比較 91 叁、Rec(2009)11、R(99)4與CRPD之比較 92 一、適用主體 93 二、意定監護與輔助決定制 94 三、歐理會所建構之二元監護模式 95 第二節 歐洲人權公約與歐洲人權法院之監護圖像 98 壹、Shtukaturov v. Russia案 99 一、本案事實 99 二、涉及之法律 101 三、法院對於公平程序與私生活權之詮釋 102 (一)公平程序 103 (二)私生活權 105 貳、Stanev v. Bulgaria案 106 一、本案事實 106 二、涉及之法律 109 三、法院對於公平程序與私生活權之詮釋 111 (一)公平程序 111 (二)私生活權 114 叁、歐洲人權公約之監護圖像 115 一、私生活權作為訴訟標的 115 二、判斷餘地與公平程序作為必要性之輔助判準 118 (一)過度依賴比例原則,忽視其他合法要件之審查 127 (二)公平程序作為私生活權之判斷標準 129 三、容許有條件之替代決定制 132 第四章 CRPD與我國監護法制 135 第一節 CRPD與我國法秩序 135 壹、CRPD與國際法效力 135 貳、CRPD與內國法效力 142 一、一元論與二元論 142 (一)一元論-國際法優先說 143 (二)一元論-內國法優先說 143 (三)二元論 144 二、CRPD在我國之法位階 144 (一)CRPD與法律 148 (二)CRPD與憲法 150 三、小結 159 第二節 CRPD第12條法律能力之憲法實踐 161 壹、人格權作為法律能力之基本權基礎 162 一、憲法解釋之人格權圖像 162 二、建構「身心障礙者人格權」作為本文權利範疇 172 (一)憲法上之依據 172 (二)身心障礙者人格權之內涵 173 (三)身心障礙者人格權與其他基本權之關係 178 貳、從障礙者人格權檢視監護制度之合憲性 181 一、障礙者人格權與比例原則 182 (一)目的正當性 183 (二)手段適合性 184 (三)手段必要性 185 (四)限制妥當性 194 二、障礙者人格權與正當法律程序 195 (一)當事人之程序參與權 197 (二)監護宣告與輔助宣告之定期檢討 199 三、障礙者人格權與平等原則 201 (一)平等原則與實質平等 204 (二)差別待遇之存在 205 (三)審查密度之選擇 207 (四)目的正當性 209 (五)實質關聯性 210 叁、小結 212 第五章 結論與展望 215 第一節 CRPD第12條法律能力之憲法實踐 215 第二節 修法建議 217 壹、歐洲經驗之啟發:輔助決定制之實現非一蹴可幾 218 貳、近程目標:修改與憲法牴觸之法律 219 叁、中程目標:增設意定監護與事前指示機制 221 肆、遠程目標:廢除對法律能力為限制之制度 222 參考文獻 225 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 論身心障礙者權利公約第12條法律能力之憲法實踐-從歐洲經驗出發 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Constitutional Implementation of Legal Capacity under Article 12 of CRPD with the Comparative Analysis of European Experiences | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 105-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 孫迺翊(Nai-Yi Sun),黃詩淳(Sieh-Chuen Huang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 成年監護,身心障礙者權利公約第12條,法律能力,輔助決定制,比例原則,正當法律程序,私生活權,判斷餘地,人格權, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | adult guardianship,article 12 of CRPD,legal capacity,supported decision-making,principle of proportionality,due process of law,the right to private life,margin of appreciation,the personality rights, | en |
dc.relation.page | 240 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201702628 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2017-08-07 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-106-1.pdf | 3.92 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。