請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71334
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張文貞(Wen-Chen Chang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Hsiang-Yu Liu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 劉祥裕 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T05:59:01Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-02-19 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-02-19 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-02-14 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 王震宇(2013)。〈氣候變遷與環境難民保障機制之研究:國際法規範體系與歐美國家之實踐〉,《歐美研究》,43 卷 1 期,頁 149-212。
李佩蓉(2014)。《程序環境人權在區域組織的建構與發展:歐盟與東協的比較與反思》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),台北。 李孟玢(1998)。〈論世界人權宣言之基本性質與法律效力〉,《國立中正大學法學集刊》,1 期,頁 333-361。 李浩銘(2017)。《我國政治難民庇護政策之研究》,國立臺灣大學社會科學院國家發展研究所碩士論文(未出版),台北。 李浩銘(2016)。〈我國對大陸及港澳人民尋求庇護之法制分析〉,《展望與探索》,14 卷 2 期,頁 67-86。 李震山(2017)。〈國際人權規範國內法化之意義〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,334 期,頁 99-107。 李念祖(2013)。〈國家人權報告國際審查撮要〉,《台灣人權學刊》,2 卷 1 期,頁 133-140。 林依靜(2009)。《難民人權保障國際規範內涵與實踐之研究》,國立東華大學財經法律研究所碩士論文(未出版),花蓮。 林慈偉(2014)。《論公民與政治權利國際公約生命權概念於我國刑事司法之實踐》,國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),嘉義。 林鴻信(2014)。《基督宗教思想史(下)》。台北:國立臺灣大學出版中心。 施正鋒(2016)。〈亞美尼亞人的悲歌〉,《台灣國際研究季刊》,第 12 卷第 3 期,頁 69-94。 施逸翔(2013)。〈馬政府打假球,民間 NGOs 玩真的!〉,《司法改革雜誌》,95期,頁 19-21。 洪文玲(2018)。〈針對國家防範機制能否有效發揮的改善建議〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,335 期,頁 62-64。 姜皇池(2013)。《國際公法導論》。台北;新學林。 姚孟昌(2014)。〈國家義務〉,收於:廖福特(編),《聯合國人權兩公約-公民與政治權利國際公約、經濟社會文化權利國際公約》,頁 57-86。台北:新學林。 高涌誠(2013)。 〈兩公約人權報告與國際審查〉,《全國律師》,17 卷 3 期,頁31-42。 徐揮彥(2014)。〈「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〉,《臺大法學論叢》,43卷特刊,頁 839-909。 陸詩薇(2013)。〈反向凝視與向下紮根:兩公約國家報告審查會議參與側記〉,《司法改革雜誌》,95 期,頁 31-33。 翁燕菁(2017)。〈對話與爭議:從歐洲人權法圖像論臺灣施行人權公約之實質意涵〉,《臺大法學論叢》,46 卷特刊,頁 1115-1201。 翁燕菁(2016)。〈國門前的難民-不遣返原則與難民法〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,250期,頁 158-170。 陳玉潔(2013)。〈對台灣人權報告國際審查的一些觀察〉,《台灣人權學刊》,2卷 1 期,頁 161-165。 陳牧民(2009)。〈領土主權與區域安全──中印領土爭議分析〉,《台灣國際研究季刊》,5 卷 1 期,頁 157-183。 陳亮賢(2013),《國際法下環境難民之研究》,國立臺灣大學法律學院法律系碩士論文(未出版),台北。 陳郴(2006)。〈克服過去:柏林歐洲猶太人大屠殺紀念碑的歷史啓思〉,《思想》,第 5 輯,頁 129-152。 陳瑤華(2015)。《人權不是舶來品:跨文化哲學的人權探究》。台北:五南。 張文貞(2015)。〈國際人權公約與憲法解釋:匯流的模式、功能及台灣實踐〉,《司法院大法官一O四年度學術研討會:人權公約與我國憲法解釋》。載於司法院 : https://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/FYDownload.asp?fileguid=000074-K1SG8 張文貞(2013)。〈兩公約國際審查的困局:法務部作為秘書處的定位失當〉,《台灣人權學刊》,2 卷 1 期,頁 141-150。 張文貞(2013)。〈臺灣政府,能不慚愧嗎?非政府組織在兩公約國家報告國際審查的角色與定位〉,《司法改革雜誌》,95 期,頁 26-27。 張文貞(2012)。〈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》,1 卷 2 期,頁 25-43。 張永呈(2017)。〈我國推動禁止酷刑公約內國法化歷程與跳戰〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,334 期,頁 114-120。 黃昭元(2015)。〈公民與政治權利國際公約與憲法解釋〉,《司法院大法官一O四年度學術研討會:人權公約與我國憲法解釋》。載於 司法院 :https://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/FYDownload.asp?fileguid=000078-V2QDE 黃昭元(1998)。〈台灣與國際人權條約〉,《新世紀智庫論壇》,4 期,頁 42-50。 黃嵩立(2014)。〈適當生活、身心健康權〉,收於:廖福特(編),《聯合國人權兩公約-公民與政治權利國際公約、經濟社會文化權利國際公約》,頁411-438。台北:新學林。 黃嵩立(2013)。〈從公民社會的角度觀察初次國家人權報告的撰寫和審查〉,《台灣人權學刊》,2 卷 1 期,頁 123-131。 邱伊翎(2013)。〈從陌生到學習—NGO 的自我培訓與省思〉,《司法改革雜誌》,95 期,頁 28-30。 楊雲驊(2014)。〈「公民與政治權利國際公約」第 7 條對國內法之效力:以預防性刑求為中心〉,《臺大法學論叢》,43 卷特刊,頁 957-1029。 鄧衍森(2016)。《國際人權法:理論與實務》。台北:元照。 鄧衍森(2010)。〈從國際法論人權的保障與實踐〉,《全國律師》,14 卷 3 期,頁13-22。 廖宗聖(2011)。〈公民與政治權利國際公約在我國的效力-以最高及高等法院刑事裁判為研究中心〉,《中華國際法與超國界法評論》,7 卷 1 期,頁 75-128。 廖福特(2018)。〈定義禁止酷刑公約的地位與未來國家防範機制的運作〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,335 期,頁 73-75。 廖福特(2015)。〈工作權之權利內涵及國家義務-以經濟社會文化權利國際公約作為借鏡〉,《台灣國際法季刊》,12 卷 4 期,頁 7-29。 廖福特(2014)。〈兩公約之歷史發展及台灣參與〉,收於:氏(編),《聯合國人權兩公約-公民與政治權利國際公約、經濟社會文化權利國際公約》,頁1-22。台北:新學林。 廖福特(2014)。〈「公民與政治權利國際公約」國內法化之影響:最高法院死刑相關判決之檢視〉,《臺大法學論叢》,43 卷特刊,頁 911-956。 廖福特(2011)。〈法院應否及如何適用經濟社會文化權利國際公約〉,《台灣人權學刊》,1 卷 1 期,頁 3-25。 廖福特(2010)。〈不受酷刑作為權利-以國際標準建構我國憲法規範〉,收於:黃舒芃(編),《憲法解釋之理論與實務(七):下冊》,頁 441-481。台北:中研院法律研究所籌備處。 廖福特(2010)。〈法院應否及如何適用公民與政治權利國際公約〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,163 期,頁 45-65。 廖福特(2009)。〈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》,174 期,頁 223-229。 廖福特(2008)。〈聯合國與人權保護〉,收於:陳隆志等合著,《聯合國:體制、功能與發展》,頁 339-370。台北:新學林。 熊彬杉(2007)。〈法路易十四時代 人口與社會文化現象〉,《興大歷史學報》,18期,頁 351-380。 郭武平、黃建豪(2013)。〈主權國家的挑戰與未來:類型化比較分析的視角〉,《全球政治評論》,44 期,頁 67-99。 郭秋慶(1987)。〈當代歐洲極權主義的理論與實際〉,《中央研究院三民主義研究所》,73 特別專刊,頁 1-42。 郭銘禮(2013)。〈初次國家人權報告之撰寫與審查的初步檢討與展望〉,《台灣人權學刊》,2 卷 1 期,頁 73-105。 葉俊榮(2015)。〈經濟社會文化權利公約與司法審查:雙重制約下的對話司法〉,《司法院大法官一O四年度學術研討會:人權公約與我國憲法解釋》,載於司法院 : https://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/FYDownload.asp?fileguid=000083-NIB2V 葉俊榮(1999),《全球環境議題-臺灣觀點》。台北:巨流。 蕭俐俐(1996)。《國際法上難民保護制度之研究》,中國文化大學法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),台北。 蘇友辰、鄧衍森(2014),〈公平審判權〉,收於:廖福特(編),《聯合國人權兩公約-公民與政治權利國際公約、經濟社會文化權利國際公約》,頁 209-234。台北:新學林。 英文 Agamben, Giorgio. 1995. We Refugees. Symposium: A Quarterly Journal in Modern Literatures 49:114-119. Aleinikoff, T. Alexander. 1992. State-Centered Refugee Law: From Resettlement to Containment. Immigration and Nationality Law Review 14:186-204. Anker, Deborah E. 2010. Refugee Law, Gender, and the Human Right Paradigm. Pp. 237-258 in International Refugee Law, edited by Lambert, H. New York: Routledge. Arboleda, E. & Ian Hoy. 1993. The Convention Refugee Definition in the West: Disharmony of Interpretation and Application. International Journal of Refugee Law 5:66-90. Barnett, Laura. 2002. Global Governance and the Evolution of the International Refugee Regime. International Journal of Refugee Law 14: 238-262. Bates, Ed. 2014. History. Pp. 15-33 in International Human Rights Law, 2nd ed., edited by Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shahm and Sandesh Sivakumaran. New York: Oxford University Press. Beck, Robert J. 1999. Britain and the 1933 Refugee Convention: National or State Sovereignty. International Journal of Refugee Law 11:597-624. Bertrand, Pierre. 1993. An Operational Approach to International Refugee Protection. Cornell International Law Journal 26:495-504. Bugnion, Francois. 2005. Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons, and International Humanitarian Law. Fordham International Law Journal 28:1397-1420. Canefe, Nergis. 2010. The Fragmented Nature of the International Refugee Regime and Its Consequences: A Comparative Analysis of the Applications of the 1951 Convention. Pp. 174-211 in Critical Issues in International Refugee Law: Strategies Towards Interpretative Harmony, edited by James C. Simeon. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cassel, Douglass. 2001. Does International Human Rights Law Make a Difference. Chicago Journal of International Law 2:121-135. Chang, Wen-Chen. 2010. The Convergence of Constitutions and International Human Rights: Taiwan and South Korea in Comparison. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 36:593-624. Chimni, B. S. 2010. Reforming the International Refugee Regime: A Dialogic Model. Pp. 411-428 in International Refugee Law, edited by Lambert, H. New York: Routledge. Cholewinski, Ryszard. 2000. Economic and Social Rights of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Europe. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 14:709-756. Clark, Tom. 2004. Rights Based Refuge, the Potential of the 1951 Convention and the Need for Authoritative Interpretation. International Journal of Refugee Law 16: 584-608. Clark, Tom & Francois Crepeau. 1999. Mainstreaming Refugee Rights - The 1951 Refugee Convention and International Human Rights Law. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 17:389-410. Donnelly, Jack. 1986. International Human Rights: A Regime Analysis. International Organization 40:599-642. Duffy, Aoife. 2008. Expulsion to Face Torture - Non-Refoulement in International Law. International Journal of Refugee Law 20:373-390. Edwards, Alice. 2014. International Refugee Law. Pp. 513-527 in International Human Rights Law, 2nd ed., edited by Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shahm and Sandesh Sivakumaran. New York: Oxford University Press. Edwards, Alice. 2010. Human Security and the Rights of Refugees: Transcending Territorial and Disciplinary Borders. Pp. 477-522 in International Refugee Law, edited by Lambert, H. New York: Routledge. Edwards, Alice. 2005. Human Rights, Refugees, and the Right to Enjoy Asylum. International Journal of Refugee Law 17:293-330. Feller, Erika. 2001. The Evolution of the International Refugee Protection Regime. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 5:129-140. Fitzpatrick, Joan. 1996. Revitalizing the 1951 Refugee Convention. Harvard Human Rights Journal 9:229-253. Fragomen, Austin T. Jr. 1970. The Refugee: A Problem of Definition. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 3: 45-69. Fullerton, Maryellen. 1993. A Comparative Look at Refugee Status Based on Persecution Due to Membership in a Particular Social Group. Cornell International Law Journal 26:505-563. Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas. 2011. Access to Asylum: International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of Migration Control. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gilbert, Geoff. 2010. Running Scared Since 9/11: Refugees, UNHCR and the Purposive Approach to Treaty Interpretation. Pp. 85-118 in Critical Issues in International Refugee Law: Strategies Towards Interpretative Harmony, edited by James C. Simeon. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gibney, Mark P. 1992. Foreign Policy: Ideological and Human Rights Factors. Pp.36-53 in Refugees and the Asylum Dilemma in the West, edited by Gil Loescher. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. Ginsburgs, George. 1957. The Soviet Union and the Problem of Refugees and Displaced Persons 1917-1956. American Journal of International Law 51:325-361. Global Citizenship Commission. (2016). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century: A Living Document in a Changing World (Brown G., Ed.). Cambridge: Open Book. Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. 2013. The Dynamic of International Refugee Law. International Journal of Refugee Law 25:651-666. Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. 2010. The Politics of Refugee Protection. Pp. 145-160 in International Refugee Law, edited by Lambert, H. New York: Routledge. Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. 1996. The Refugee in International Law. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Gorlick, Brian. 2000. Human Rights and Refugees: Enhancing Protection through International Human Rights Law. Nordic Journal of International Law 69:117-177. Grhal-Madsen, Atle. 2001. The Special Regime of Refugees. Pp. 162-172 in The Land Beyond: Collected Essays on Refugee Law and Policy, edited by Peter Mascalister-Smith and Gudmundur Alfredsson. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Grhal-Madsen, Atle. 2001. The League of Nations and the Refugees. Pp.126-137 in The Land Beyond: Collected Essays on Refugee Law and Policy, edited by Peter Mascalister-Smith and Gudmundur Alfredsson. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Grhal-Madsen, Atle. 2001. Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner. Pp. 290-294 in The Land Beyond: Collected Essays on Refugee Law and Policy, edited by Peter Mascalister-Smith and Gudmundur Alfredsson. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Grahl-Madsen, Atle. 1986. Protection of Refugees by Their Country of Origin. Yale Journal of International Law 11:362-395. Gunning, Isabelle R. 1991. Modernizing Customary International Law: The Challenge of Human Rights. Virginia Journal of International Law 31:211-248. Gunning, Isabelle R. 1989. Expanding the International Definition of Refugee: A Multicultural View. Fordham International Law Journal 13:35-85. Hannum, Hurst. 1995. The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 25:287-397. Harvey, Colin. 2015. Time for Reform? Refugees, Asylum-seekers, and Protection Under International Human Rights Law. Refugee Survey Quarterly 34:43-60. Harvey, C. J. 1999. Talking about Refugee Law. Journal of Refugee Studies 12:101-134. Hathaway, James C. 2010. A Reconsideration of the Underlying Premise of Refugee Law. Pp. 65-120 in International Refugee Law, edited by Lambert, H. New York: Routledge. Hathaway, James C. 2007. Why Refugee Law Still Matters. Melbourne Journal of International Law 8:89-103. Hathaway, James C. 2005. The Rights of Refugees under International Law. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hathaway, James C. 1991. Reconceiving Refugee Law as Human Rights Protection. Journal of Refugee Studies 4:113-131. Hathaway, James C. 1984. The Evolution of Refugee Status in International Law: 1920-1950. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 33:348-380. Helton, Arthur C. 1990. What Is Refugee Protection. International Journal of Refugee Law 2:119-129. Helton, Arthur C. 1983. Persecution on Account of Membership in a Social Group as a Basis for Refugee Status. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 15:39-67. Holborn, Louise W. 1938. The Legal Status of Political Refugees, 1920-1938. American Journal of International Law 32:680-702. Hong, Jeanhee. 2001. Refugees of the 21st Century: Environmental Injustice. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 10:323-348. Hurwitz, Agnes. 2012. Norm-Making in International Refugee Law. American Society of International Law Proceedings 106:430-433. Jaeger, Gilbert. 2001. On the History of the International Protection of Refugees. International Review of the Red Cross 83:727-737. James, Stephen. 2007. Universal Human Rights: Origins and Development. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Jastram, Kate. 2010. Economic Harm as a basis for Refugee Status and the Application of Human Rights Law to the Interpretation of Economic Persecution. Pp.143-173 in Critical Issues in International Refugee Law: Strategies Towards Interpretative Harmony, edited by James C. Simeon. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kalin, Walter. 2012. Examination of State Reports. Pp. 16-72 in UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy, edited by Helen Keller and Geir Ulfstein. New York: Cambridge University Press. Keith, Linda Camp. 1999. The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does It Make A Difference in Human Rights Behavior. Journal of Peace Research 36:95-118. Keller, Helen and Leena Grover. 2012. General Comments of the Human Rights Committee and Their Legitimacy. Pp.116-194 in UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy, edited by Helen Keller and Geir Ulfstein. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kelley, Ninette. 2007. International Refugee Protection Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Refugee Law 19:401-439. Khaliq, Urfan and Robin Churchill. 2012. The Protection of Economic and Social Rights: A Particular Challenge?. Pp. 199-260 in UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy, edited by Helen Keller and Geir Ulfstein. New York: Cambridge University Press. Koh, Harold H. 1996. The 1994 Roscoe Pound Lecture: Transnational Legal Process. Nebraska Law Review 75:181-207. Korey, W. 2001. NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Curious Grapevine. New York: Palgrave. Krenz, Frank E. 1966. The Refugee as a Subject of International Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 15:90-116. Krill, Françoise. 2001. The ICRC’s Policy on Refugees and Internally Displaced Civilians. International Review of the Red Cross 83:607-626. Lee, Luke T. 1996. Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees: Toward a Legal Synthesis. Journal of Refugee Studies 9:27-42. Lewis, Corinne. 2005. UNHCR's Contribution to the Development of International Refugee Law: Its Foundations and Evolution. International Journal of Refugee Law 17:67-90. Loescher, Gil, Alexander Betts and James Milner. 2008. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: The Politics and Practice of Refugee Protection into the Twenty-first Century. Oxford: Routledge. Loescher. Gil. 1993. Beyond Charity: International Cooperation and the Global Refugee Crisis. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press. McAdam, Jane ed. 2008. Forced Migration, Human Rights and Security. Portland: Hart Publishing. McAdam, Jane. 2007. Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Mertus, Julie. 1998. The State and the Post-Cold War Refugee Regime: New Models, New Questions. Michigan Journal of International Law 20:59-90. Morsink, Johannes. 1999. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting and Intent. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Odhiambo-Abuya, E. 2003. Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons: Examining Overlapping Institutional Mandates of the ICRC and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 7:236-266. O'Rourke, Joseph. 2014. Education for Syrian Refugees: The Failure of Second-Generation Human Rights During Extraordinary Crisis. Albany Law Review 78:711-738. Osiatynski, Wiktor. 2014. The Historical Development of Human Rights. Pp. 9-24 in Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law, edited by Scott Sheeran and Sir N. Rodley. New York: Routledge. Skran, Claudena M. 1988. Profiles of the First Two High Commissioners. Journal of Refugee Studies 1: 277-296. Skran, Claudena M. 1992. The International Refugee Regimes: The Historical and Contemporary Context of International Responses to Asylum Problem. Pp. 8-35 in Refugees and the Asylum Dilemma in the West, edited by Gil Loescher. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. Smith, Rhona K. M. 2010. Textbook on International Human Rights. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Steiner, Henry J., Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman. 2008. International Human Rights In Context: Law, Politics, Morals. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Stoyanova, Vadislava. 2008. The Principle of Non-Refoulement and the Right of Asylum-Seekers to Enter State Territory. Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Rights Law 3:1-11. Ulfstein, Geir. 2012. Individual Complaints. Pp. 73-115 in UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy, edited by Helen Keller and Geir Ulfstein. New York: Cambridge University Press. U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, The state of the world's refugees 2000: fifty years of humanitarian action (Vienna: United Nations, 2008). Available at http://www.unhcr.org/3ebf9ba80.html. U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Environmental refugees: myth or reality?, 20 March 2001. Available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/4ff57e562.html. Wallace, Rebecca M.M. & Fraser A.W. Janeczko. 2015. The Concept of Asylum in International Law. P.p. 33-58 in Refugees and Rights, edited by Crock, M. UK: Dorst Press. Waltz, Susan. 2001. Universalizing Human Rights: The Role of Small States in the Construction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 23:44-72. Weis, Paul ed. 1995. The Refugee Convention, 1951: The Travaux Preparatoires Analysed with a Commentary. UK: Cambridge University Press. Weis, Paul. 1982. Development of Refugee Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 3:27-42. Weissbrodt, David and Connie de la Vega. 2007. International Human Rights Law: An Introduction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Woodruff, Chris. 2014. Refugee Law: Improving Oversight and Accountability. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 29:147-168. Worster, William Thomas. 2012. The Evolving Definition of the Refugee in Contemporary International Law. Berkeley Journal of International Law 30:94-160. Wotipka, Christine Min & Kiyoteru Tsutsui. 2008. Global Human Rights and State Sovereignty: State Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties, 1965-2001. Sociological Forum 23:724-754. Wouters, Cornelis. 2014. International Refugee and Human Rights Law: Partners in Ensuring International Protection and Asylum. Pp. 231-244 in Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law, edited by Scott Sheeran and Sir N. Rodley. New York: Routledge. Zimmermann, Andreas ed. 2011. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71334 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 難民議題在二十一世紀隨著國家內戰甚或氣候變遷的加劇,再次成為棘手且亟需回應的問題。當今針對難民議題,所適用的國際難民規範係起因於兩次世界大戰後的慘痛經驗。隨著國際人權精神的逐漸成形,國際人權規範開始在國際社會的努力下確立且茁壯。因此,吾人在探討難民議題時,除了具體專責的難民法規範外,以人權為基礎的相應規範更不容忽視。從而,本文面對難民議題時,即探討並主張兩大法規範體系應一體適用,且在未有專責難民規範保障之處,人權規範有其角色與意義。
本文以跨國規範化歷程作為研究的主要方法,因此在認識兩大規範體系上,會著重從個別議題至規範形成過程中的觀察。從而本文在分析兩大國際規範體系之際,不會僅是處理法律文字上的解釋,更會進一步探討規範運作以及規範適用過程中的各種行動者。換言之,本文對於難民規範以及人權規範內容的認識,無非是動態性的分析。 最後,本文回到我國的現況,以兩大規範體系的兼容關係來探討並適用於當今臺灣面臨的問題。本文認為,在尚未有《難民法》的臺灣社會,對難民議題並非束手無策。2009 年,《公民與政治權利國際公約》以及《經濟社會與文化權利國際公約》藉由國內法化,已奠定其在我國的法律地位。我國政府基於此,對於難民議題責無旁貸。此外,從人權公約的內國法化過程,更彰顯出我國不同領域的行動者,對於催生具體難民規範的貢獻以及努力。這些都再進一步提供我國對於難民應更積極作為的例證。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | On account of the rise of civil wars and climate change, the issue of refugee has once become a controversial and urgent topic in the 21st century. The norms that specifically apply to the refugee issue to date can be mainly traced back to the horrific experiences that occurred during World War II. However, it is disputable if these norms still can be applied to the emerging refugee issue over the last decades. In addition to the norms specialized in the refugee issue, the international human right laws also should be considered with the development of human right spirits. The international human right laws are getting stronger and flourish thanks to their own structure for evolving further. Based on human right spirits, refugees cannot be harshly excluded from the application of the international human rights laws. From my perspective, the international refugee laws should be applied in accordance with the international human rights laws. Furthermore, the rights that are not guaranteed in the refugee laws can be inherently protected according to the international human rights laws. I will apply the transnational legal process theory to illustrate the similarity of the contexts where the two legal systems have arisen and point out the actors which are involved in the law-making process of the two legal systems.
As one member in the international society, Taiwan can no longer stay out of the emerging refugee issue. Yet, due to the political status of Taiwan, the challenges faced by Taiwan are quite different from what others are confronting. Taiwan is blocked from the international society and thus lacks the capacity to sign the international treaties. However, this does not imply that Taiwan has nothing to do with the refugee issue. In 2009, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights both have been incorporated into the legal system in Taiwan by means of the implementation act. I suggest that the Two Covenants should be applicable to the refugee and thus Taiwanese government is obligated to take action in response to the refugee issue. Also, through the lens of the transnational legal process theory, the actors involved in the law-making process in Taiwan are manifested and the contribution the actors made can be linked to the final result. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T05:59:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R04a21091-1.pdf: 2509814 bytes, checksum: 9620a1596584794f10eb37995c382d26 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 簡目
第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究範圍與限制 3 第三節 名詞定義 6 第四節 研究方法 7 第五節 研究架構 8 第二章 難民議題與其規範化之發展歷程 10 第一節 難民議題之沿革 10 第二節 難民議題之規範化進程 22 第三節 國際難民規範的挑戰與困境 53 第三章 難民議題與核心國際人權規範 62 第一節 核心國際人權規範與其發展歷程 62 第二節 核心國際人權規範與難民議題之連結 81 第四章 核心國際人權規範與國際難民規範間之適用關係 88 第一節 不遣返原則(Non-refoulement)的適用 89 第二節 難民基本權利之保障 102 第三節 小結 110 第五章 臺灣面對難民議題之挑戰 112 第一節 臺灣與國際難民規範之接軌 112 第二節 難民議題與臺灣現有核心國際人權規範之調合 121 第三節 與難民議題相關之規範化進程的行動者 135 第六章 結論 144 參考文獻 147 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 難民議題之國際規範適用:兼論臺灣面臨之挑戰 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Refugee Issues in International Law: A Case Study of Taiwan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 廖福特(Fu-Te Liao),翁燕菁(Yen-Ching Weng) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 難民,國際人權公約,難民公約,兩公約,難民法草案,跨國規範化歷程, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | international human right law,international refugee law,refugee,ICCPR,ICESCR,transnational legal process,Two Covenants, | en |
dc.relation.page | 161 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201900587 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-02-14 | |
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-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.45 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。