請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/93034
標題: | 論間接歧視之司法審查 The Judicial Review of Indirect Discrimination |
作者: | 李昭華 Chao-Hua Lee |
指導教授: | 林明昕 Ming-Hsin Lin |
關鍵字: | 實質平等,間接歧視,差別影響歧視,歧視意圖,差別影響,平等原則,比例原則,規則法,權衡法, substantive equlity,indirect discrimination,disparate impact discrimination,discriminatory intent,disparate impact,principle of equality,principle of proportionality,rules approach,balancing test, |
出版年 : | 2024 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 自司法院釋字第666號解釋,我國開展平等權審查的不同視野,即揭示間接歧視之存在。然而,若追蹤後續發展,則可發現實務對於如何處理間接歧視,實屬陌生,甚至混亂。因此,本論文旨在研究於司法審查下,應如何妥適評價一個涉及間接歧視的爭議案件,探討當說明一種措施構成間接歧視時,其應被分析的第一層次問題:「間接不利對待認定」與第二層次問題:「正當化事由檢驗」之合適樣貌。
倘以美國法及歐洲人權法院裁判為我國的比較借鏡,首先,在間接不利對待認定部分,美國法發展出「立法者歧視意圖」或「客觀上不成比例的差別影響」等兩種判斷方法,並就其優劣取捨有豐富探討。對之,歐洲人權法院則是在實際應用的過程中,呈現因應案型而選擇不同判斷方法的現象。其次,在正當化事由檢驗部分,美國多以立法者明定之規則為檢討,以利裁判安定性;對之,歐洲人權法院則以具包容性的兩階段檢驗框架(目的正當性、手段目的關聯性),為全面權衡檢查,以折衝雙方當事人之公、私益糾葛。 鑑於歧視之性質或歧視之案型(例如就業歧視領域)於各國均具一定之共通性,因此,本文認為於間接不利對待之認定上,可效仿歐洲人權法院的認定方法,以提升間接歧視得以被揭露的可能;於正當化事由之檢驗上,則可因應不同解釋之特性,而為類型化建構:憲法解釋時,因牽涉多方利益而有權衡需要,故以兩階段檢驗框架為平等原則之權衡檢討;法律解釋時,則以立法者明定(或可透由解釋而得)之規則為檢查,以避免偏見裁判且利其裁判明確。 Ever since J.Y. Interpretation No. 666 , Taiwan has adopted a new perspective on the review of equality, revealing the existence of indirect discrimination. However, via tracing subsequent developments revealed that judicial practices to handling indirect discrimination remain unfamiliar or even chaotic. Therefore, the present thesis aims to study how to appropriately evaluate a dispute involving indirect discrimination under judicial review, examining the suitable forms of the first-level issue: "identification of indirect disadvantages," and the second-level issue: "examination of justification" when explaining a certain measure that induced indirect discrimination. Using U.S. law and judgments of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as comparative references for Taiwan, this study discovered that in terms of identifying indirect disadvantages, U.S. law has developed two methods: "legislative discriminatory intent" and " disproportionately prejudicial effects", with extensive discussions on their respective pros and cons. In contrast, the ECtHR selects different identification methods based on case types during practical application. Regarding the examination of justification, the practice of the U.S. predominantly relies on legislatively defined rules to maintain adjudicative stability. Conversely, the ECtHR employs an inclusive two-stage examination framework (legitimacy of the aim and the connection between means and aim) to weigh on the public and private interests of both parties involved comprehensively. Given the commonality of the nature of discrimination or types of discrimination cases (e.g., employment discrimination) across countries, the present study suggests adopting the identification method for indirect disadvantage of ECtHR to enhance the likelihood of uncovering indirect discrimination; for the examination of justification, different approaches should be made based on the specific characteristics of the interpretation type: when applying constitutional interpretations, a balancing test is needed due to the involvement of multiple interests, so we utilize the two-stage examination framework to weigh on principle of equality; when applying legal interpretations, examinations should follow clearly defined legislative rules (or rules derivable through interpretation) to avoid biased judgments and ensure clarity in adjudication. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/93034 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU202401683 |
全文授權: | 同意授權(限校園內公開) |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-112-2.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務) | 4.11 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。