English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 20 |  Items with full text/Total items : 90026/119936 (75%)
Visitors : 24022594      Online Users : 81
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
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96683

    Title: 生命權與廢除死刑——歐洲理事會觀點之分析
    Other Titles: Right to Life and the Abolition of the Death Penalty —Analyses of Views of the Council of Europe
    Authors: 廖福特
    Liao, Fort Fu-Te
    Keywords: 生命權;廢除死刑;歐洲理事會;歐洲人權公約;第六議定書;第十三議定書;酷刑和其他殘忍;不人道或有辱人格的待遇或處罰;國家保障生命權之義務;待死現象
    Right to Life;Abolition of the Death Penalty;Council of Europe;European Convention on Human Rights;Protocol No.6;Protocol No.13;Torture and Cruelty;Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;State's Obligation to Protect the Right to Life;Death row phenomenon
    Date: 2006-08
    Issue Date: 2016-05-16 16:49:24 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 歐洲理事會是生命權及廢除死刑規範之制訂者及推動者,其藉由「歐洲人權公約」及其第六議定書及第十三議定書之簽訂,而建構保障生命權及廢除死刑之規範,而其實質內涵之發展是經歷三個過程,即先確定生命權之保障,再進展至平時廢除死刑,最後則希望推展至全面廢除死刑。\r如果沒有生命權之保障,便無法享有其他自由及權利。雖然歐洲人權法院盡可能地避免介入審議生命兩端所引發之爭議性問題,但是其強調國家不只是不應故意或非法剝奪生命,更應積極地採取必要適當措施保障人民之生命。在剝奪生命是否合法部分,雖然歐洲人權法院沒有直接認為死刑是不人道的,但是其強調死刑判決必須經過公平審判之機關及程序,處以死刑之後亦應著重受刑人之待遇。歐洲理事會各國亦應注意死刑判決之適用範圍,同時不得將某人引渡至可能受死刑判決之國家。在使用武力而剝奪生命時,歐洲人權法院依嚴格比例原則審查必須是絕對必要時才能使用武力,國家更應負擔確實調查之義務。歐洲理事會對生命權之保障及對廢除死刑之堅持可說是國際法之經典,而這是值得台灣深思與學習的,而其包括對生命權之確認、詳細內含之建構及廢除死刑理念之參酌。
    The Council of Europe is the rule maker and promoter of the right to life and the abolition of the death penalty in Europe. Its rules include the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocol 6 and Protocol 13. The process is comprised of three stages: protection of the right to life, abolition of the death penalty in peacetime and complete abolition. Without protection of the right to life, people cannot enjoy other liberties and rights. Although the European Court of Human Rights avoids reviewing what is the ambit of life, the Court emphasizes that a state should refrain from depriving life intentionally or illegally, and further should adopt necessary vigorous measures to protect life. Concerning whether deprivation of life is legal, although the Court does not directly rule that the death penalty is inhumane, it emphasizes that a judgment imposing the death penalty should be done through fair trial institute and procedure. Treatment of those who are facing execution should also be fair. Member states of the Council of Europe have to limit the ambit of applying the death penalty, and should not extradite a person to states where they may suffer from the death penalty. Whenever there is deprivation of life by the using of force the Court employs strict proportionality to examine whether it is absolutely necessary. When force is used a state should also conduct effective investigations. The Council of Europe’s insistence on protection of the right to life and the abolition of the death penalty can be regarded as a model in international law, from which Taiwan may learn much, such as confirming the right to life, constructing its detailed contents and deliberating ideas supporting the abolition of the death penalty.
    Relation: 法學評論, 92, 49-120
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    92(49-120).pdf812KbAdobe PDF608View/Open

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

    社群 sharing

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