查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 論奴隸制度、奴役制度與強迫勞動之禁止:以歐洲人權公約第四條為中心
- 集會及結社自由權:歐洲人權法院判決之分析
- Public Service, Free Expression and European Convention on Human Rights
- 歐洲人權法院--歷史、組織、職權及程序
- The Right to Freedom of Expression and the Protection of Health and Morals--The Jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights
- 歐洲人權公約之監督機構--國際人權最強而有力之監督者
- 憲法上「公平聽審權」於行政程序中之適用--以歐洲人權公約為中心
- 嶄新的歐洲人權法院
- 嶄新的歐洲人權法院
- 歐洲人權政策規範對法國國內法律判決之影響
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 論奴隸制度、奴役制度與強迫勞動之禁止:以歐洲人權公約第四條為中心=Prohibition of Slavery, Servitude and Compulsory Labour: A Study of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 李孟玢; | 書刊名 | 經社法制論叢 |
卷期 | 27 2001.01[民90.01] |
頁次 | 頁321-350 |
分類號 | 579.27 |
關鍵詞 | 歐洲人權公約; 歐洲人權委員會; 歐洲人權法院; 國際勞工組織; 奴隸制度; 奴役制度; 強迫性或強制性勞動; 排除條款; 正當拘禁過程; 軍事性質之服務; 緊急狀態或災難; 正常公民義務; European convention on human rights; European commission of human rights; European court of human rights; International labour organization; Slavery; Servitude; Forced or compulsory labour; Exemption clause; Ordinary course of detention; Service of a military character; Emergence or calamity; Normal civic obligations; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 歐洲人檢公約第四條禁止締約國實施奴隸或奴役制度,並要求締約國政府,除本條另有規定外,不強求私人從事強迫性或強制性勞動。然本公約既未界定奴隸制度與奴役制度的法律意涵,亦未說明何為強迫性或強制性勞動。此一缺憾將有賴歐洲人權委員會與法院參照其他國際公約或法理加以釐清。目一九五三年歐洲人權公約生效後的數十年間,私人控告締約國違反公約第四條者並不多見,而歐洲人權保障機構在過去審理涉及公約第四條的規定,並未完全喪失其現代意義,按在過去的數十年間,私人控告締約國違反本條規定者,多涉及締約國內國法制要求受刑人或被羈押之人,從事特定勞動;另有要求相關專業人士(如醫師或律師),於社會需要時,提供特定服務。歐洲人權保障機構不認為此類勞動或服務,構成強迫性或強制性勞動,但其所持見解,卻深值分析與理解。 |
英文摘要 | Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits the High Contracting Parties from introducing slavery and servitude into their domestic legal systems, and provides that private individuals enjoy the freedom from forced or compulsory labour. The legal concepts of "slavery" and "servitude" are nevertheless not specified in this article, nor are the term of "forced" or "compulsory" labour well defined. The drafters of the Convention were likely to leave these issues to the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights for further clarification. During the last five decades, few complaints were made by private individuals for violation of Article 4 of the Convention and in the examination of those limited cases, the Strasbourg institutes on human rights were not able to find them admissible or in violation of the Article. In the light of those complaints, the relevant High Contracting parties were not able to find them admissible or in violation of the Article. In the light of those complaints, the relevant High Contracting Parties were accused of requiring the petitioners to engage in certain services or provide certain services, which, in the views of those petitioners, constituted forced or compulsory labour. Although the Strasbourg institutes did not find those complaints acceptable, their views in the interpretation of Article 4 of the Convention deserve notice and analysis. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。