English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113318/144297 (79%)
Visitors : 51094738      Online Users : 863
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/136976
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136976


    Title: 論兒童遊戲權於我國之實踐──以兒童遊戲場法制與共融遊戲場採購案為中心
    Implementing Children’s Right to Play in Taiwan: With a Focus on Play Space Regulations and Inclusive Playground Procurement
    Authors: 許立儒
    Hsu, Li-Ru
    Contributors: 孫迺翊
    詹鎮榮

    許立儒
    Hsu, Li-Ru
    Keywords: 兒童權利公約第31條
    身心障礙者權利公約第30條
    遊戲權
    共融遊戲場
    政府採購
    UNCRC Article 31
    CRPD Article 30
    Right to Play
    Inclusive Playground
    Public Procurement
    Date: 2021
    Issue Date: 2021-09-02 17:00:51 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 「遊戲」係指兒童自主發起、可能發生於任何時間或地點且形式不拘之行為、活動或過程,為其獲得樂趣、鍛鍊體能、學習社交以及培養面對挑戰與風險等能力之關鍵途徑。而遊戲權(right to play)更規範於1989年聯合國兒童權利公約(Convention on the Rights of the Child, CRC)第31條,亦即締約國承認兒童享有從事適合其年齡之遊戲,且聯合國兒童權利委員會(U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child)進一步於第17號一般意見中詳細闡釋了締約國在保障兒童遊戲權方面應盡之義務。然而在遊戲權實踐方面,實存在許多共通且待解決之問題,其中兒童遊戲場之規劃設計即為本文關注之核心。

    申言之,除了因環境開發及都市化程度上升,使適宜兒童之戶外遊戲空間日漸減少之外,現有遊戲場亦常以安全為由,在遊戲設施設計與場地規劃方面漸趨制式而單一,不僅無法滿足各年齡層兒童之遊戲需求,更常使身心障礙兒童難以進入或使用,而與身心障礙者權利公約(Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD)第30條第5項d款關於平等遊戲之規範意旨相悖。而同樣的問題於我國亦屢見不鮮,蓋我國與戶外遊戲場有關之規範內容主要在於場地與設施維護以及傷害事故防治,惟安全性固然重要,卻也凸顯了現行法制尚欠缺遊戲場空間規劃及遊戲設施設計等與遊戲權落實最為相關之立法;同時亦可能因過度執著於風險規避,導致廠商傾向設計施作符合法規但可玩性低落之遊具,進而產生前述遊戲場罐頭化與速食化之現象,更因此犧牲了兒童在遊戲過程本應獲得之生、心理層面發展與面對風險之能力。

    除了法制層面之不足外,自實務面以觀,近年來在公民團體的積極推動與倡議之下,部分地方政府開始逐步執行「共融遊戲場採購案」,亦即跳脫原本僅以安全性或法規要求為考量之框架,將兒童權利公約與身心障礙者權利公約中遊戲權之規範意旨納入採購需求,設置利於兒童平等遊戲之遊戲場。此舉雖然對我國遊戲場生態帶來正面影響,然而因相關法規之欠缺、以及各地方政府對於兒童遊戲之了解與重視程度亦有所不同,而導致此類遊戲場經常存在雖有共融之名、卻無共融之實等現象。

    綜合以上,關於我國設置遊戲場以落實兒童平等遊戲之目的,無論是法律規範或是採購實務方面,均與兒童權利公約及身心障礙者權利公約之意旨有所落差,而有許多可更臻完善之處。因此,本文將以我國之公園及學校遊戲場為研究範圍,首先透過公約規範內容、一般性意見與相關文獻之分析,建構對於遊戲權與共融遊戲內涵之理解;再者,本文將進一步以英國威爾斯之遊戲政策與共融遊戲相關規範為比較法對象,作為嗣後分析我國現行遊戲場法制與採購實務時之借鏡,以提出建立或修改法律規範與採購文件之建議,並將側重討論地方政府在遊戲場規劃設計方面應踐行何種義務,始能實踐平等與共融遊戲等目標。
    “Play” is any behavior, activity or process initiated and controlled by children themselves voluntarily. It can take place in any kinds of forms at any time or place. Play is essential to children as it allows them to develop their physical strength, social interaction skills, cognitive abilities, and emotional intelligence. In view of such importance, the right to play is recognized under Article 31 in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and Article 30 in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) that every child is entitled to have equal access to participation in play appropriate to his or her age.

    Nevertheless, there have been several longstanding issues related to the implementation of the right to play. In Taiwan, rapid urbanization and environmental development have made it difficult for children to access suitable play spaces. Furthermore, play space regulations mainly focus on risk control and accident prevention, lacking provisions regarding inclusive playground designs and children’s participation. Hence, cookie-cutter play equipment is commonly built for safety reasons, which meets the national standards but neglects the needs of children in different age groups and those with disabilities. To tackle these problems, some local governments have begun procuring inclusive playgrounds, aiming to rebuild or create more spaces that foster children’s play. However, as there are no common design guidelines or relevant regulations to follow, some playgrounds turned out to lack inclusivity as a result.

    Thus, this thesis will first draw on contemporary research on children’s play and how State Parties of the UNCRC and CRPD should recognize, respect, and promote play as a right. Furthermore, the thesis will analyze Taiwan’s play space regulations and inclusive playground procurement to gain a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of the right to play and existing problems. Finally, the thesis will conduct a comparative study on Wales’ play policies and regulations for the purpose of learning from their experience and proposing legislative suggestions.
    Reference: 一、 中文文獻
    (一) 專書
    Tim Gill著,社團法人臺灣還我特色公園行動聯盟謝宜暉、蔡青樺、葉于莉譯(2018),安全的玩?公共空間中兒童遊戲、風險與責任的全球白皮書。
    王佳琪、李玉華、還我特色公園行動聯盟(2020),公園遊戲力:22個精彩案例 × 一群幕後推手,與孩子一起翻轉全台兒童遊戲場,臺北:聯經出版公司。
    林家祺(2016),政府採購法,3版,臺灣:新學林。
    林鴻銘(2008),政府採購法之實用權益,9版,臺北:永然。
    高玉泉、蔡沛倫(2016),兒童權利公約逐條要義,臺北:衛生福利部社會及家庭署。
    (二) 專書論文
    江嘉琪、馬鴻文、廖孟儀(2020),綠色採購思維導入與案例探討,收於:陳綠蔚、邱雅文編,政府採購法修訂與落實之研討,頁39-60,臺北:財團法人中技社。
    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,收於:廖福特編,憲法解釋之理論與實務第八輯上冊,頁175-275,臺北:中央研究院法律學研究所。
    陳怡凱(2010),國際人權公約之內國效力──以人民及政治權利公約暨經濟社會文化權公約施行法為例,收於:社團法人台灣法學會編,台灣法學新課題(八),頁27-69,臺北:元照。
    陳明堂(2017),我國對國際習慣法及公約國際法在內國法生效之法制規範,收於:陳荔彤院長論文集編輯委員會編,國際法與國內法的一元論──陳荔彤教授六秩晉五華誕祝壽論文集(上),頁135-162,臺北:法源資訊。
    廖福特(2017),歷史發展及權利內涵,收於:孫迺翊、廖福特編,身心障礙者權利公約,頁3-24,臺北:新學林。
    蔡培元(2017),身心障礙兒童之保障,收於:孫迺翊、廖福特編,身心障礙者權利公約,頁139-166,臺北:新學林。
    (三) 期刊論文
    周淑菁(2017),共融遊戲場對身心障礙家庭與社會帶來的改變,輔具之友,41期,頁53-60。
    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,40卷4期,頁559-602。
    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,52期,頁164。
    林淑媛、黃憶婷(2007),設計合作學,設計研究,7期,頁68-75。
    邱大昕(2017),CRPD 與「合理調整」,社區發展季刊,157期,頁236-240。
    邱大昕、陳美智(2015),身心障礙醫療化的在地經驗與反思,科技醫療與社會,21期,頁135-158。
    邱垂發(2016),兒童遊戲場管理法制規範問題之研析,國會月刊,44:2期,頁88-113。
    施慧玲(2004),論我國兒童人權法制之發展──兼談落實「聯合國兒童權利公約」之社會運動,國立中正大學法學集刊,14期,頁169-204。
    唐峰正(2016),因應高齡化社會之全方位住宅趨策──通用設計,國土及公共治理季刊,4卷1期,頁136-142。
    孫迺翊(2015),身心障礙者權利公約施行法第8條第1項規定與身心障礙者權利公約適用問題初探,萬國法律,204期,頁13-31。
    孫迺翊(2016),無障礙/可及性、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,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,45卷特刊,頁1163-1228。
    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S期,頁839 - 909。
    張立東、蕭景祥、林佳蓉(2005),兒童遊戲場墜落因子之探討,嘉南學報,31期,頁302-309。
    許育典、封昌宏(2015),政府採購文化藝術表演活動的法制爭議——以百年國慶音樂劇夢想家案為例,中原財經法學,36期,頁121-169。
    陳怡凱(2011),國際法於我國內國法院之實踐,司法新聲,104期,頁28-43。
    詹鎮榮(2008),給付行政之法律保留密度再思考⎯⎯以軍公教退休人員優惠存款為例,月旦法學雜誌,157 期,頁18-23。
    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。
    劉定基(2016),國際人權公約內國法化對司法實務的影響──以行政法院裁判為觀察中心,法令月刊,67卷10期,頁78-103。
    滕西華、汪育儒、林恩淇、李盈萱、張嘉玲(2017),身心障礙者的休閒與運動權──聯合國身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD)第30條第5項在臺灣的實踐,社區發展季刊,157期,頁266-278。
    蔡昆瀛、陳介宇(2011),嬰幼兒社會情緒發展與評量之探討,國小特殊教育,51期,頁29-40。
    顏玉明(2014),政府採購環境保護產品之探討,軍法專刊,60卷3期,頁71-102。
    (四) 碩博士論文
    王筱雯(2018),政府採購作為勞動及社會政策工具之正當性與界限──以歐盟及我國法制為中心,國立中正大學法律系研究所碩士論文。
    余虹儀(2006),國內外通用設計現況探討與案例應用之研究,實踐大學工業產品設計研究所碩士論文。
    林沛君(2017),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,國立政治大學法律學系博士論文。
    馬若慈(2014),論兒童陳述意見之權利:以兒童權利公約為核心,國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    (五) 研討會論文
    張文貞(2009),國際人權法與內國憲法的匯流:台灣施行兩大人權公約之後,台灣法學會2009年學術研討會,台灣法學會主辦,頁12-22。
    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,司法院主辦,頁101-128,2015年12月5日。
    (六) 網路資料
    人權公約施行監督聯盟(2017),「身心障礙者權利公約初次報告」2017平行報告,https://covenantswatch.org.tw/portfolio/2017-crpd-shadow-report-ch/。
    台灣少年權益與福利促進聯盟(2017),【這次,該你說囉!】 CRC民間監督聯盟回應2016年《兒童權利公約首次國家報告》之影子報告,https://www.youthrights.org.tw/news/579。
    台灣事故傷害預防與安全促進學會(2017),衛生福利部社會及家庭署委託研究計畫,國內外無障礙兒童遊樂設施規範之比較研究成果報告書,https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/Detail.aspx? nodeid=453&pid=4234。
    中華民國身心障礙聯盟(2017),中華民國身心障礙聯盟聯合國身心障礙者權利公約平行報告書,https://crpd.sfaa.gov.tw/BulletinCtrl?func=getBulletin&p=b_ 2&c=D&bulletinId=55。
    二、 英文文獻
    (一) 專書
    Alston, Philip and John Tobin. 2005. Laying the Foundations for Children`s Rights. New York, NY: UNICEF.
    Bueren, Geraldine Van. 1998. The International Law on the Rights of the Child. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
    Corvaglia, Maria Anna. 2017. Public Procurement and Labour Rights: Towards Coherence in International Instruments of Procurement Regulation. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
    Craig, Paul P. 2016. Administrative Law. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
    Della, Valentina, FinaRachele, and CeraGiuseppe Palmisano. 2017. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York, NY: Springer.
    Detrick, Sharon. 1999. A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
    Hodgkin, Rachel and Peter Newell. 2007. 3rd ed. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York, NY: UNICEF.
    Lester, Stuart and Wendy Russell. 2010. Children`s Right to Play: An Examination of the Importance of Play in the Lives of Children Worldwide. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.
    McCrudden, Christopher. 2007. Buying Social Justice: Equality, Government Procurement, and Legal Change. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Preiser, Wolfgang and Korydon Smith. 2011. 2nd ed. Universal Design Handbook. Pennsylvania Plaza, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
    Sánchez Graells, Albert. 2011. Public Procurement and the EU Competition Rules. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
    (二) 專書論文
    Lansdown, Gerison and John Tobin. 2019. Article 31. The Right to Rest, Leisure, Play, Recreation, and Participation in Cultural Life in and the Arts. Pp. 1195-1224 in The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Commentary, edited by John Tobin.
    Lundy, Laura, John Tobin and Aisling Parkes. 2019. Article 12. The Right to Respect for the Views of the Child. Pp. 397-434 in The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Commentary, edited by John Tobin.
    Telgen, Jan, Christine Harland and Louise Knight. 2007. Public procurement in perspective. Pp. 16-24 in Public Procurement: International Cases and Commentary, edited by Louise Knight, Christine Harland, Jan Telgen, Khi V. Thai, Guy Callender, and Katy McKen. New York, NY: Routledge.
    (三) 期刊論文
    Bolton, Phoebe. 2006. Government Procurement as a Policy Tool in South Africa. Journal of Public Procurement 6:193-217.
    Freeman, Michael. 1994. Whither Children: Protection, Participation, Autonomy? Manitoba Law Journal 22:307-327.
    Grandia Jolien and Joanne Meeha. 2017. Public Procurement as a Policy Tool: Using Procurement to Reach Desired Outcomes in Society. International Journal of Public Sector Management 30: 302-309.
    Hamraie, Aimi. 2016. Universal Design and the Problem of “Post-Disability” Ideology. The Journal of the Design Studies 8: 285-309.
    McCrudden, Christopher. 2004. Using Public Procurement to Achieve Social Outcomes. Natural Resources Forum 28:257-267.
    Nieusma, Dean. 2004. Alternative Design Scholarship: Working toward Appropriate Design. Design Issues 20:13-24.
    Schooner, Steven L. 2002. Desiderata: Objectives for a System of Government Contract Law. Public Procurement Law Review 11:103-110.
    Wood, Jenny. 2017. Planning for Children’s Play: Exploring the ‘Forgotten’ Right in Welsh and Scottish Policy. Liverpool University Press. 88:579-602.
    Woolley, Helen and Alison Lowe. 2013. Exploring the Relationship between Design Approach and Play Value of Outdoor Play Spaces. Landscape Research 38:53-74.
    (四) 網路資料
    The Play Safety Forum. 2012. 2nd ed. Managing Risk in Play Provision: Implementation guide. Available at https://www.playwales.org.uk/login/uploaded/ documents/Play%20and%20Challenge/Managing%20Risk%20in%20Play%20Provision.pdf.
    Welsh Assembly Government. 2002. Play Policy. Available at https://www.playwales.org.uk/login/uploaded/documents/Play%20Policy/Wales%20play-policy-e.pdf.
    Welsh Assembly Government. 2004. Children and Young People: Rights to Action. Available at https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7717/1/090415rightstoactionen.pdf.
    Welsh Assembly Government. 2006. Play Policy Implementation Plan. Available at https://www.playwales.org.uk/login/uploaded/documents/Play%20Policy/play-policy-implementation-plan-e.pdf.
    Welsh Assembly Government. 2007. Shared Planning for Better Outcomes: Planning Guidance and Regulations for Local Authorities and their Partners on Children and Young People’s Plans. Available at https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7699/2/betterout comes_Redacted.pdf.
    Welsh Government. 2014. Wales — a Play Friendly Country. Available at https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-07/wales-a-play-friendly-country.pdf.
    Welsh Government. 2018. Having a voice, having a choice: children and young people’s national participation standards. Available at https://gov.wales/children-and-young-peoples-national-participation-standards.
    Welsh Government. Play Sufficiency Toolkit. Available at https://gov.wales/play-sufficiency-toolkit.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律學系
    106651012
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106651012
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202101267
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    101201.pdf5346KbAdobe PDF2329View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    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 ©   - Feedback