政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/115464

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/115464

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文筆數/總筆數 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造訪人次 : 50958665 線上人數 : 920

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜尋範圍

查詢小技巧：

您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果

若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料

進階搜尋

主頁 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上傳 ‧ 說明 ‧ 關於政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手機版

政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/115464

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/115464

題名:	兒童權利公約在台灣的國內法化－－以離婚後子女親權行使與兒少安置案件中兒童及少年被傾聽的權利為例 Incorporation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Taiwan: With a special focus on the child’s right to be heard in child custody and care proceedings
作者:	林沛君
貢獻者:	孫迺翊林沛君
關鍵詞:	兒童權利公約國際人權公約公約國內法化施行法人權公約施行法兒少被傾聽的權利家事事件家事事件法安置兒少未成年子女親權書件程序監理人 Incorporation of human rights treaty United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child The right of the child to be heard Family proceedings Act to implement convention on the rights of the child UNCRC
日期:	2017
上傳時間:	2018-01-03 16:20:45 (UTC+8)
摘要:	兒童權利公約施行法自2014年11月20日實施至今已近三年，而依據該施行法之規定，政府已陸續展開國內法令與公約是否牴觸之檢視及以各級政府為對象之兒童權利教育宣導課程等工作，並於2017年11月完成兒童權利公約首次國家報告國際審查，施行法顯然已逐步將公約內涵國內法化而具重要之指標及實質意義。惟公約實踐之關鍵係公約規範能否確實成為檢視國內法律及政策之基準，以及得否為權利遭受侵害之兒少所具體主張；其中國家是否建置相關機制協助兒少行使其權利，確保兒少於未成年之際不因自身能力及發展尚未健全而無法行使其權利，對兒少權利之保障尤為重要。儘管自2009年以來，除兒童權利公約外，立法院已先後透過施行法將其他四部聯合國人權公約轉換成為國內法律；然針對公約適用之若干核心議題，包括解釋及適用公約時應遵循之原則、公約與國內法律衝突時衍生之法律適用及權利遭受侵害之救濟機制等，皆有待闡釋及釐清。就此，本論文總結英國、德國、法國及美國等四國之實踐經驗而認為儘管公約之落實並「無一放諸四海皆準之方式」（no one right way），但以下公約國內法化之核心問題亟待確立：（一）施行法應明訂公約具直接適用效力條文之優位地位；（二）明確將「公約解釋模式」此一法院於個案審理中最強而有力、最能直接將公約標準導入國內法律體系之工具納入施行法；（三）透過公約解釋性文件資料庫之建置協助司法人員掌握公約規範之精神與內涵；（四）明文要求增修法律前應提出法案影響評估以確保增修內容與公約並未牴觸等，期使國內法制更能順利接軌國際人權公約。本論文另以兒少被傾聽的權利為例，藉由與法官、律師、社工等17位兒少實務工作者進行深度訪談，彙整推導出兒少被傾聽的權利於司法程序中獲得實質實踐之效果不明（有權利但不一定有救濟）、兒少表意之環境未達「兒少友善」之標準，顯見國內兒少被傾聽權利之落實與公約標準確實存有相當之落差。此外，部分協助兒少行使其被傾聽權利之機制設計未確實掌握兒童權利之內涵、整體兒少司法環境未能以兒少為中心進行調整，以致於相關機制欠缺公約所強調之核心功能，無法使特定弱勢兒少享有與一般兒少同等之權利保障，亦有待補強及改善。。本論文嘗試由實務面思考兒童權利公約於國內實踐之現況並導引出應更受重視之諸多面向及困境，期待法院及政府各級機關能更廣泛地採行及運用公約之規範及理念，在國內深化落實兒童權利公約之際，對於「兒童權利」精神所在及其可能為兒少所帶來之改變能有進一步之認知及體悟，並以此為基礎，在影響兒少甚鉅之司法及行政事件中建構一個更能鼓勵兒少參與及表達意見之友善環境。 Following the coming into effect of the “Act to Implement Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)” on 20 November 2014, the Taiwan Government has adopted various initiatives to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), demonstrating the Act’s steady, yet far-reaching influence in incorporating the CRC into domestic law. In addition to harmonizing national legislation for children with the standards contained within the CRC, it is also of crucial importance for the government to ensure that children whose rights are being violated or disregarded have access to remedies, and that an effective framework is available to children to assist in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights. Despite the fact that the Taiwan Government has promulgated four implementation acts to incorporate international human rights conventions into domestic law since 2009, several fundamental issues remain with regard to the interpretation and application of the convention. Drawing on the experiences of England, Germany, France and the United States, this thesis makes the following observations: (1) the ‘convention-compliant’ approach to legal interpretation is one of the most powerful tools by which convention rights are directly transposed into domestic legal norms and should be expressly provided for in the Act; (2) to resolve potential conflict(s) between domestic law and convention rights, the Act should explicitly state that the CRC shall prevail in cases of inconsistences; (3) the Act should provide for the establishment of a database of interpretative documents issued by United Nations treaty bodies, to aid the practice and understanding of the CRC; and (4) human rights impact assessments should be undertaken before passing any new laws or amendments. The observations in this thesis are also based on in-depth interviews conducted by the researcher with 17 children’s practitioners. Such interviews highlight that not all children enjoy the right to be heard in family proceedings and that there is a gap between law and practice. More specifically, they highlight that “for rights to have meaning, effective remedies must be available to redress violations”; and family proceedings should be more child-centred with child-friendly designs, so that children in such settings can exercise their right to be heard effectively. This thesis also attempts to demonstrate that when mechanisms set up by the government fail to accomplish their legislative purpose and act as a safeguard for children’s rights, it is the more vulnerable groups of children (for example, children in care) who suffer from being denied the same rights as other children.
參考文獻:	一、中文文獻（一）專書丘宏達著，陳純一修訂（2012），現代國際法，修訂三版，台北：三民。李太正（2014），家事事件法之理論與實務，台北：元照。林沛君編著（2014），兒少人權，向前行－－兒童權利公約逐條釋義，台北：展翅協會。林真美譯（2012），好心的國王兒童權利之父－－柯扎克的故事，台北：親子天下。姜皇池（2015），國際公法導論（三版二刷），台北：新學林。姜世明（2012），家事事件法論，台北：元照。陳向明（2016），社會科學質的研究，台北：五南。陳新民（2001），中華民國憲法釋論(修正四版)，台北：三民。監察院人權保障委員會（2014），2013年監察院人權工作實錄：第一冊公民與政治權利，台北：監察院。監察院人權保障委員會（2014），2013年監察院人權工作實錄：第二冊經濟、社會與文化權利，台北：監察院。瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞主編（2016），社會及行為科學研究法－－質性研究法，台北：東華。（二）專書論文李建良（2014），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，廖福特編，憲法解釋之理論與實務第八輯，中央研究院法律學研究所，台北：新學林，頁175-275。林沛君（2016），第六章廣義表達意見之自由，收錄於施慧玲、陳竹上主編，兒童權利公約，台北：台灣新世紀文教基金會，頁125-146。施慧玲（2004），子女本位之親子法，收錄於氏著：家庭、法律、社會論文集，台北：元照，頁203-219。施慧玲、張旭政（2003），論國家介入親權行使之法理基礎 – 以兒童人權為中心之論證基礎，收錄於2002年台灣人權報告，台北：台灣人權促進會，頁 203-219。孫迺翊（2014），社會保障權，收錄於聯合國人權兩公約—公民與政治權利國際公約、經濟社會文化權利公約，台北：台灣新世紀文教基金會，頁393-410。高玉泉、施慧玲（2016），兒童權利公約之歷史發展與台灣參與，收錄於施慧玲、陳竹上主編，兒童權利公約，台北：台灣新世紀文教基金會，頁1-27。翁燕菁（2015），性別工作平等，收錄於張文貞主編，消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約，台北：台灣新世紀文教基金會，頁361-400。郭明政（2011）。「社會福利與社會保險」，收錄於《中華民國發展史．政治與法制》(下)，台北：聯經，頁313-352。張文貞（2009），憲法與國際人權法的匯流－－兼論我國大法官解釋之實踐，收錄於憲法解釋之理論與實務第六輯(上冊)，台北：中研院/元照，頁223-272。傅崑成（2001），再論國際人權法在中華民國法律架構內的適用，收錄於：丘宏達教授六秩晉五華誕祝壽論文集編輯委員會，國際法論文集：丘宏達教授六秩晉五華誕祝壽論文集，台北：三民，頁549-582。鄧衍森（2006），人權理念在我憲法解釋之應用，載：社團法人台灣法學會主編，主權、憲法與台灣的未來，台北：元照，頁199-232。（三）期刊論文王自雄（2010），人權兩公約之國內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，第164期，頁113-122。王秀文（2011），華勒斯《兒童》中的人物命名研究，淡江外語論叢，第18期，頁58-74。王曉丹（2006），談英國離婚法改革的發展 – 法政策、法理、法社會之探討，台大法學叢論，第35（5）期，頁163-208。余寬賜（1999），我國「條約締結法」之擬議，政治科學論叢，第10期，頁227-244。沈冠伶（2013），家事非訟程序之關係人，月旦法學教室，第124期，頁39-51。林沛君（2017），兒少「表意權」實質意涵的初探－以被安置兒少發聲的權利為中心，台灣人權學刊，第4卷第1期，頁73-96。林沛君（2016），人權公約匯入國內法律體系所面臨之課題－－以實踐兒童權利公約之國際經驗為借鏡，國立中正大學法學集刊，第52期，頁161-219。林沛君（2015），由兒童權利公約檢視國內性剝削兒少安置處遇之法律規範－－從保護客體蛻變為權利主體之典範移轉，憲政時代，第40卷第4期，頁 559-602。林沛君（2015），由聯合國兒童權利委員會第14號一般性意見重新檢視「子女最佳利益」，華岡法粹，第58期，2015年，頁127-160。林鈺雄（2014），2013年刑事程序法回顧：從國際人權公約內國法化的觀點出發，臺大法學論叢，第43卷特刊，頁1276-1677。施慧玲（1998），少年非行防治對策之新福利法制觀 – 以責任取向的少年發展權為中心，中正大學法學集刊，創刊號，頁199-231。施慧玲（2004），論我國兒童人權法制之發展－－兼談落實『兒童權利公約之社會運動，中正大學法學集刊，第14期，頁169-204。孫迺翊（2015），身心障礙者權利公約第8條第1項規定與身心障礙者權利估約適用問題初探，萬國法律，第204期，頁13-31。洪遠亮（2011），子女利益及監護理論之新趨勢–從北院98年度婚字第244號判決談起，法學叢刊，222期，頁101-151。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，第43卷特刊，頁839-909。黃越欽（2002），國際勞工公約與憲法法院 – 兼論大法官釋字第373號，憲政時代，28卷，第3期，頁34-38。郭明政（2007），社會法治國的司法建構─第六屆大法官解釋中與社會安全法制相關解釋之分析，憲政時代第33卷2期，頁187-220。郭明政（1994），法律在社會福利體系中之角色與任務，社區發展季刊，67期，頁75-87。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，第2卷第1期，頁73-105。陳怡凱（2014），國際法於我國內國法院之實踐，司法新聲，第104期，頁28-43。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，臺灣人權學刊，1卷2期，頁25-43。彭淑華（2006），保護為名，權控為實？ - 少年安置機構工作人員的觀點分析，東吳社會工作學報，15期，頁1-36。雷文玫（1999），以「子女最佳利益之名：離婚後父母對未成年子女權利義務行使與負擔之研究」，臺大法學論叢第28卷第3期，頁245-309。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，第43卷特刊，頁911-956。廖福特（2010），國際人權條約國內法化與地方自治體，台灣國際法季刊，第7卷2期，頁75-116。廖福特（2011），法院應否及如何適用《公民與政治權利國際公約》，台灣法學，163期，頁45-65。廖福特（2014），司法審判於兩公約人權保障思維所面臨之挑戰─行政法院適用兩公約之檢視，法學叢刊，59卷2期，頁1-42。廖福特（2009），批准聯合國兩個人權公約及至制定施行法之評論，月旦法學雜誌，174期，頁223-229。劉定基（2013），議會至上與人大至上—從英國違憲審查的發展看中國違憲審查的未來，政大法學評論，135期，頁255-306。劉宏恩（2014），「離婚後子女監護案件『子女最佳利益原則』的再檢視---試評析2013年12月修正之民法1055條之1規定」，月旦法學，第234期，頁193-207。鄧衍森（2010），人權保障的規範理論：序曲，台灣法學雜誌，第166期，頁123-130。鄧學仁（2011），離婚後子女親權酌定之問題與對策，月旦法學雜誌，第191期，頁34-44。賴淳良（2017），性剝削保護安置事件（上），司法周刊，第1842期，頁2-3。賴淳良（2017），性剝削保護安置事件（下），司法周刊，第1843期，頁23。賴月蜜、林沛君、李姿佳、朱怡瑄、胡育瑄、溫筱雯（2015）。NPO推展程序監理人制度之行動研究－以現代婦女基金會雙專業團隊模式為例，東吳社會工作學報，第29期，頁53-86。賴月蜜（2009），小娃兒進衙門－談司法與社工在「兒童出庭」的保護，社區發展季刊，128期，頁86-98 （四）學位論文林沛君（2012），機構安置之兒童及少年人權保障法制 – 以兒童國際人權公約及英國兒童法為借鏡，國際政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文。馬若慈（2014），論兒童陳述意見之權利：以兒童權利公約為核心，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所。黃逸柔（2012），離婚後親權人之決定與未成年子女最佳利益之研究，國立中正大學法律研究所碩士論文。陳竹上（2007），離婚後未成年子女最佳利益之研究：福利國家與家庭角色的再思考，國立中正大學社會福利所博士論文。陳韋方（2012），夫妻離婚後親權人決定之研究 - 以子女最佳利益為中心之實務見解剖析，中國文化大學法律學系碩士論文。陳嬿婷（2015），陪同兒少出庭社工之經驗初探 ─以監護權案件出庭為例，東吳大學社會工作學系碩士論文。彭怡萍（2014），監護權訪視調查中專業人員維護子女最佳利益之研究-以社工人員及程序監理人之觀點為中心，玄奘大學社會福利與社會工作學系碩士論文。（五）研討會論文廖福特（2016），我國批准與履行國際人權條約之情況，論文發表於兒童權利公約－－首次國家報告發表記者會暨國際研討會，衛生福利部社會及家庭署。陳毓文（2002），安置機構處遇計畫的轉銜，論文發表於財團法人勵馨社會福利事業基金會「折翼天使的另類天堂 — 兒少安置機構現況與展望研討會」。（六）研究計畫施慧玲教授主持（廖宗聖副教授、陳竹上副教授協同主持）（2014），推動聯合國兒童權利公約國內法化期末報告，衛生福利部社會家庭署（兒童少年科）計畫案。陳隆志持（廖福特協同主持）（2003），國際人權公約國內法化之方法與策略，行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告。（七）官方文件行政院（2017），兒童權利公約首次國家報告，檔案連結：https://www.yoursaas.com/websites/30547540144657724502/docs/nationalreport .pdf。中華民國（台灣）兒童權利公約首次國家報告國際審查會議結論性意見，檔案連結（2017）：https://www.yoursaas.com/websites/30547540144657724502/docs/C01-CN.pdf 。中華民國（台灣）兒童權利公約首次國家報告問題清單及政府回應，檔案連結： https://www.yoursaas.com/websites/30547540144657724502/docs/QA01-CH.pdf。（八）其他中華民國（台灣）兒童權利公約首次國家報告－－NGO報告資料庫連結： http://www.crcreview.org.tw/。二、英文（一）專書 ALLEN, NICK (4th ed. 2005). MAKING SENSE OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Aust, Anthony (3rd ed. 2013). MODERN TREATY LAW AND PRACTICE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bainham, Andrew & Stephen Gilmore (4th ed. 2013). CHILDREN AND THE MODERN LAW. Bristol: Jordans. Beatson, Jack. Grosz, Stephen. Hickman, Tom & Singh, Rabinder with Palmer,Stephanie (2008). HUMAN RIGHTS: JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. London : Sweet & Maxwell. Brayne, Hugh & Carr, Helen (2010). LAW FOR SOCIAL WORKERS. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BUTLER, IAN & DRAKEFORD, MARK (2005) SCANDAL, SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL WELFARE. NEW YORK: POLICY PRESS Diduck, Alison & Kaganas, Felicity (3rd ed. 2013). FAMILY LAW, GENDER AND THE STATE – TEXT, CASES AND MATERIALS, Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd. FORTIN, JANE (3rd ed. 2009). CHILDREN’S RIGHTS AND THE DEVELOPING LAW. CAMBRIDGE: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. Hodgkin, Rachel & Nowell, Peter (4th ed. 2007). IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK FOR THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, Geneva: UNICEF. Hoffman, David & Rowe, John (2d ed. 2006). HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UK: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998. Essex: Pearson Longman. Kavanagh, Aileen (2009). CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW UNDER THE UK HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kadushin, Alfred & Kadushin, Goldie (4th ed.1997). THE SOCIAL WORK INTERVIEW – A GUIDE FOR HUMAN SERVICE PROFESSIONALS, New York: Columbia University Press. Lammy, Betten (1999). THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: WHAT IT MEANS: THE INCORPORATION OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS INTO THE LEGAL ORDER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. The Hague: M. Nijhoff Publishers. MacDonald, Alistair (2011). THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD－－LAW AND PRACTICE, Bristol: Jordan Publishing. Mason, Mary Ann (1994). FROM FATHER’S PROPERTY TO CHILDREN’S RIGHTS－－THE HISTORY OF CHILD CUSTODY IN THE UNITED STATES. New York, Columbia University Press. O’Connell, Daniel P. (1971). INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR STUDENTS. London : Stevens & Sons. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)(2007), LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, VOL. I. New York:UN. Oppenheim, Lassa (8th ed.1963). INTERNATIONAL LAW – A TREATISE, VOL. I – PEACE. London: Longman. Parkes, Aisling (2013). CHILDREN AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW－THE RIGHT OF THE CHILD TO BE HEARD. Oxon: Routledge. Steiner, H., Alston, P. & Goodman, R. (2007. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT － LAW, POLITICS, MORALS. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thor Björgvinsson , Davíd (2015). A THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ANALYSIS. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Van Bueren, Geraldine (1998). INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD.Dordrecht, The Netherlands : M. Nijhoff Publishers. Veerman, Philip (1992). THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AND THE CHANGING IMAGE OF CHILDHOOD, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: M. Nijhoff Publishers. Wadham, John. Mountfield QC, Helen. Prochaska, Elizabeth & Brown, Christopher(6th ed. 2012). BLACKSTONE’S GUIDE TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, Jane (2008). CHILD LAW FOR SOCIAL WORK. London: Sage. Zander, Michael (4th ed. 1997). A BILL OF RIGHTS? London: Sweet & Maxwell. （二）專書論文 Abramson, Bruce (2008). Article 2. The Right of Non-Discrimination, in A COMMENTARY ON THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (A. Alen, J. Vande Lanotte, E. Verhellen, F. Ang, E. Berghamans and M Verheyde eds.), pp. 1-148. Andreas L. Paulus (2009). Germany, in THE ROLE OF DOMESTIC COURTS IN TREATY ENFORCEMENT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (David Sloss ed.), pp. 209-242. Byrnes, A. & Renshaw, C. (2nd ed. 2014) Within the State, in INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, (D. Moeckli, S. Shah & S. Sivakumaran eds.), pp. 458-475. Cantwell, Nigel (1992). The Origins, Development and Significance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: A GUIDE TO THE “TRAVAUS PRÉPARATOIRES” (Sharon Detrick (ed.), pp. 19-30. Charney, Jonathan L. (2003) Commentary: Compliance With International Soft Law, in COMMITMENT AND COMPLIANCE: THE ROLE OF NON-BINDING NORMS IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM (Dinah Shelton, ed.), pp.115-118. Counzens, Meda (2015). France, in LITIGATING THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD IN DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE (Ton Liefaard & Jaap E. Doek eds.), pp.123-138. DEMAUSE, LLOYD (2005). THE EVOLUTION OF CHILDHOOD, in CHILD WELFARE – MAJOR THEMES IN HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE, VOL. 1: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES, (Nick Frost ed., 2005), pp.1-64. Doek, Jaap (2006) Article 8: The Right to Preservation of Identity, and Article 9 The Right Not to Be Separated from His or Her Parents, in A COMMENTARY ON THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (A. Alen, J. Vande Lanotte, E. Verhellen, F. Ang, E. Berghamans and M Verheyde eds.), pp.1-31. Dubinsky, Paul R (2011). United States, in INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEMS: INCORPORATION, TRANSFORMATION, AND PERSUASION (Dinah Shelton, ed.), 631-659. Eekelaar, John (2000). The End of an Era? in CROSS CURRENTS:FAMILY LAW AND POLICY IN UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND ( Sanford N. Katz ed.), pp.637-655. Folz, Hans-Peter (2011) Germany, in INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEMS: INCORPORATION, TRANSFORMATION, AND PERSUASION (Dinah Shelton, ed.), pp. 240-248. FREEMAN, MICHAEL (2011). THE VALUE AND VALUES OF HUMAN RIGHTS, IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF CHILDREN – FROM VISIONS TO IMPLEMENTATION (ANTONELLA INVERNIZZI AND JANE WILLIAMS, EDS.), PP. 21-36. Freeman, Michael (2011). Why it Remains Important to Take Children’s Rights Seriously, in CHILDREN’S RIGHTS: PROGRESS AND PERSPECTIVES—ESSAYS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S RIGHTS (M. Freeman ed.), pp.5-25 Freeman, Michael (2007). Article 3. The Best Interests of the Child, in A COMMENTARY ON THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (A. Alen, J. Vande Lanotte, E. Verhellen, F. Ang, E. Berghamans and M Verheyde eds.), pp. 1-79. Harris-Short, Sonia (2007). Family Law and the Human Rights Act 1998 – judicial restraint or revolution in. JUDICIAL REASONING UNDER THE UK HUMAN RIGHTS ACT (Fenwick, Helen. Phillipson, Gavin & Masterman, Roger eds.), pp. 308-347. Hendrick, Harry (2004). Identities and definitions, in CHILD WELFARE – MAJOR THEMES IN HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE, VOL. 1: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES, (Nick Frost ed., 2005), pp. 231-250. Kamchedzera, Garton (2012). Article5. The Child’s Right to Appropriate Direction and Guidance, in A COMMENTARY ON THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (A. Alen, J. Vande Lanotte, E. Verhellen, F. Ang, E. Berghamans and M Verheyde eds.), pp.1-40. Méndez, Emilio Gracía (2013). A Comparative Study of the Impact of the Convention on the Rights of the Child – Law Reform in Selected Civil Law Countries, in PROTECTING THE WORLD’S CHILDREN – IMPACT OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD IN DIVERSE LEGAL SYSTEMS (UNICEFhttp://ebooks.cambridge.org). Nowak, Manfred (2005). Article 6. The Right to Life, Survival and Development, in A COMMENTARY ON THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (A. Alen, J. Vande Lanotte, E. Verhellen, F. Ang, E. Berghamans and M Verheyde eds.), pp. 1-49. Parker, Steven (1994). The Best Interests of the Child Principles and Problems, in THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD – RECONCILING CULTURE AND HUMAN RIGHTS (Philip Alston ed.), pp. 26-41. Shelton, Dinah (2011). Introduction, in INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEMS: INCORPORATION, TRANSFORMATION, AND PERSUASION (D. Shelton ed.), pp. 1-22. Shelton, Dinah (2003), Commentary and Conclusions, in COMMITMENT AND COMPLIANCE: THE ROLE OF NON-BINDING NORMS IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM (D. Shelton ed.), pp. 449-463 Sloss, David (2009). Treaty Enforcement in Domestic Courts: A Comparative Analysis,in THE ROLE OF DOMESTIC COURTS IN TREATY ENFORCEMENT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (David Sloss ed.), pp. 1-60. Verheyde, Mieke (2007). Articles 43-45. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in A COMMENTARY ON THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (A. Alen, J. Vande Lanotte, E. Verhellen, F. Ang, E. Berghamans and M Verheyde eds.), pp.1-50. Williams, Jane (2015). England and Wales, in LITIGATING THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD – THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD IN DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE (Ton Liefaard & Jaap E. Doek eds.), pp.53-70. （三）期刊論文 Alston, Philip (1994). The Best Interests Principle: Towards A Reconciliation of Culture and Human Right, 8 International Journal of Law and the Family, pp. 1-25. Alston, Philip (1992). The legal framework of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 91/2 Bulletin of Human Rights, pp.1-15. Bianchi, Andrea (2004). International Law and US Courts – the Myth of Lohengrin Revisited, 15(4) European Journal of International Law, pp.751-781. Bonner, David & Fenwick, Helen (2003). Judicial Approaches to the Human Rights Act 52(3) I.C.L.Q., pp.549-585. Clayton, Richard (Spr. 2004). Judicial Deference and ‘Democratic Dialogue’: the Legitimacy of Judicial Intervention under the Human Rights Act 1998, P.L., pp.33-47. Donnelly, C. (2010). Reflections of a Guardian Ad Litem on the Participation of Looked-after Children in Public Law Proceedings, 16(2) Child Care in Practice, pp. 181-193. Eekelaar, John (2002), Beyond the Welfare Principle, 14(3) Child Law and Family Law Quarterly, pp.237-249. Eekelaar, John (1986), The Emergence of Children’s Rights, 6(2) OXFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, pp. 161-182. Fredman, Sandra (2006). From Deference to Democracy: The Role of Equality Under the Human Rights Act 1998, 122 L.Q.R., pp.53,-81. Freeman, Michael (2006), Review Essay: What’s Right with Rights for Children, 2(1) International Journal of Law in Context, pp. 89-98. Freeman, Michael (1993). Laws, Conventions and Rights, 7(1) Children & Society, pp.37-48. Funge, Ann M. (2011). Articulated At Last: What Factors Constitute ‘Best Interests of the Child, 33-APR Pa. Law, pp.24-26. Griffith, Daniel B. (1991). The Best Interests Standard: A Comparison of the State’s Parens Patriae Authority and Judicial Oversight in Best Interests Determinations for Children and Incompetent Patients, 8 Issues L. & Med., pp. 283-338. Guzman, Andrew T. &Meyer, Timothy L. (2003). International Soft Law, 2 Journal of Legal Analysis, pp.171-222. Handl, Gunther F. et al (1990) A Hard Look at Soft Law, 82 American Society of International Law Proceedings, pp.371-393. Herring, Jonathan (2002). The Human Rights of Children in Care, 118 L.Q.R., pp.534-538. Hickman, Tom (Sum. 2005). Constitutional Dialogue, Constitutional Theories and the Human Rights Act 1998, P.L., pp.306-335. Kanetake, Machiko & Nollkaemper, André (2014). The Application of Informal Instruments Before Domestic Courts, 46 George Washiongton International Law Review, pp. 765-807. Klug, Francesca & Starmer, Keir (Win. 2005)., Standing Back From the Human Rights Act: How Effective is it Five Years On? P.L., pp.716-728. Kohm, Lynne M.(2008). Tracing the Foundations of the Best Interests of the Child Standard in American Jurisprudence, 10 J. L. & Fam. Stud., pp. 337-376. Kopelman, Loretta & Zermatten, Jean (2010). The Best Interests of the Child Principle: Literal Analysis and Function, 8 Int. J. Child Right, pp. 483-499. Lee, Yanghee (2013). Address: Creating New Futures for All Children: The Promise of International Human Rights Law, 20 Australian International Law, pp. 3-16. Lopatka, Adam (1999). The Convention on the Rights of the Child: Universal Dilemmas, An Essay, 21 Whittier L. Rev. pp. 83-93. Lundy, Laura. Kilkelly, Ursula & Byrne, Bronagh (2013). Incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Law: A Comparative Review, 21Int’l J. Children’s Rts, pp. 442-463. Mechlem, Kerstin (2009). Treaty Bodies and the Interpretation of Human Rights, 42 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, pp. 905-947. Mercer, Kathryn L. (Winter, 1998). A Content Analysis of Judicial Decision-Making: How Judges Use the Primary Caretaker Standard to Make a Custody Determination, 5 Wm.& Mary J. Women & L., pp. 1-148. Miles, Joanna (2002). Mind the Gap…Child Protection, Statutory Interpretation and the Human Rights Act, 61(3) C.L.J., pp. 533-537. Nicol, Danny (Win. 2006). Law and Politics after the Human Rights Act, P.L., pp.722-751. Peskind, Steven N. (2005). Determining the Undeterminable: The Best Interest of the Child Standard as an Imperfect but Necessary Guidepost to Determine Child Custody, 25 N. Ill. U. L. Rev., pp. 449-481. Potter, Mark (2008). The Voice of the Child: Children’s “rights” in Family Proceedings, 2 The Family in Law, available at http://www.mishpat.ac.il/files/650/2911/3605/3606.pdf. Robert Mnook (1975). Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy, 39 L. Contemp. Probs., pp. 226-293. Rodham, Hilary (1973). Children under the Law, 43 Harvard Educational Review pp.487-514. Sales, Philip & Ekins, Richard (2011) Rights-Consistent Interpretation and the Human Rights Act 1998, 127 L.Q.R., pp. 217-238. Sawyer, Caroline (1999). Conflicting Rights for Children: Implementing welfare, autonomy and justice within family proceedings, 21(2) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, pp. 99-120. Singh, Rabinder (2002). The Declaration of Incompatibility, 7(4) Judicial Review, pp.237-243. Sloss, David (2006). Using International Law to Enhance Democracy, 47 Va. J. Int’l L., pp.1-61. Sorkow, Harvey R. (1991). Best Interests of the Child: By Whose Definition? 18 Pepp.L.Rev., pp.383-387. Starmer ,Keir (2003). Two Years of the Human Rights Act, 1 E.H.R.L.R., pp.14-23. Steyn, Johan van Zyl (Lord Steyn)(1998). ‘Incorporation and Devolution－a Few Reflections on the Challenging Scene’,2 European Human Rights Law Review, pp.153-156. Straw, Jack (2010). The Human Rights Act – Ten Years On, 6 E.H.R.L.R., pp.576-581. Tapp P. (2006). Judges are Human Too: Conversations Between the Judge and a Child as a Means of Giving Effect to Section 6 of the Care of Children Act 2004, 35 New Zealand Law Review, pp. 35-74. Turner, Catherine (2011). Human Rights and the Empire of International Law, 29 Lw & Inequality, pp.313-341. Vick, Douglas W. (2002). The Human Rights Act and the British Constitution, 37(2) Tex. Int`l L.J., pp. 329-372. Weisburd, A. Mark (2005). Roper and the Use of International Sources, 45 Va. J. Int’l L., pp. 789-798. Wright, Jane (Jul. 2009). Interpreting Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998: Towards an Indigenous Jurisprudence of Human Rights, P.L., pp. 595-616. Young, Alison L.(Oct. 2011). Is Dialogue Working Under the Human Rights Act 1998? P.L., pp. 337-800. （四）研究報告 Alston, Philip & Tobin, John (Nov 2005). Laying the Foundations for Children’s Rights, UNICEF, available at https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/ii_layingthefoundations.pdf. Blake, Conway (2008). Normative Instruments in International Human Rights Law: Locating the General Comment (Ctr. for Human Rights & Global Justice, Working Paper No. 17, 2008). Child Rights International Network (CRIN). Access to Justice for Children: France, Child Rights International Network, https://www.crin.org/en/home/law/access,https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/ france_access_to_justice_sept2015_0.pdf Child Rights International Network (CRIN), Access to Justice for Children: Germany, Child Rights International Network, https://www.crin.org/en/home/law/access. Child Rights International Network (CRIN), Access to justice for children: a comparative analysis of 197 countries, https://www.crin.org/en/home/law/access. Child Rights International Network (CRIN), Rights, Remedies & Representation: Global Report on Access to Justice for Children, 2016, available at https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/crin_a2j_global_report_final_1.pdf Peters, Jean Koh (2005). How Children Are Heard in Child Protective Proceedings, in the United States and Around the World in 2005: Survey Findings, Initial Observations, and Areas for Further Study, Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship Series, available at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3181&context=f ss_papers. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2006). The General Measures of the Convention on the Rights of the Child – The Process in Europe and Central Asia, available at http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/415. UNICEF Innocenti Research Search Centre (2007), Law Reform and Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, available at http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/493. （五）聯合國官方文件 U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, _______ General Comment No. 1 (2003) on Article 29: the aims of education. _______ General Comment No. 5 (2003) on “General Measures of implementation for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (arts. 4, 42 and 44, para. 6). ______ General Comment No. 7 (2005)on implementing child rights in early childhood. ______ General Comment No. 10, Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice (2007). ______ General Comment No. 12 (2009) on the right of the child to be heard. ______ General Comment No. 13 (2011): The right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence. ______ General comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration. _______ Concluding Observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – Overseas Territories CRC/C/15/Add.135 (2000). Human Rights Committee _______ General Comment No. 6 (1982): Right to life _______ General Comment No. 18 (1989): Non-discrimination The Secretary General (1949), The Main Types and Causes of Discrimination: Memorandum (UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/40/Rev.1, 1949), （六）其他德國聯邦外交部（Auswärtiges Amt）網站資料，Children’s Rights in the United Nations, Federal Foreign Office, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Menschenrechte/Kinderrecht eVN_node.html Gainborough, Jenni & Lean, Elisabeth (2008), Convention on the Rights of the Child and Juvenile Justice, available at http://www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/thelink2008summer.pdf. Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty, Presented to Parliament, The Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill, Command Paper No. Cm 3782 (“White Paper”), para. 1.2 (October 1997), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-human-rights-bill. UK Ministry of Justice (2014), Responding to Human Rights Judgments: Report to the Joint Committee Human Rights on the Government Response to Human Rights Judgments 2013-2014 (cm 8962) .
描述:	博士國立政治大學法律學系 101651504
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101651504
資料類型:	thesis
顯示於類別:	[法律學系] 學位論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
150401.pdf	3209Kb	Adobe PDF2	671	檢視/開啟

在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回饋