由美國聯邦最高法院Medellin v. Texas案論非自動履行條約在美國國內法之地位

我國法院與學者，多認為經立法院同意締結之條約應有國內法之效力，此是否即可謂其規定應可直接在法院適用？學說上有所謂自動履行條約與非自動履行條約之區分，是參考美國聯邦最高法院所提出之自動履行理論，認為僅自動履行條約能直接由法院適用，而非自動履行之規定則應由國內立法加以執行，否則將不具有可適用性。自動履行理論之所以令人困惑，係因美國憲法第六條之最高法律條款明白規定條約應為全國之最高法律，而有與聯邦立法相當之效力，法院原則上不應拒絕適用之。職是，聯邦最高法院之所以拒絕適用非自動履行條約之規定，必定有其理由。本文之目的，是希望透過對美國自動履行理論之研究，能解釋法院宣稱非自動履行條約之規定不能直接適用之原因，以及其是否仍為國內法之疑問。在二○○八年，聯邦最高法院在Medellin v. Texas案中宣告聯合國憲章第九十四條之規定不能自動履行，其論述為自動履行理論之發展帶來重要影響，並因此遭受批評。之所以如此，係因美國在自動履行之問題上，可分為國際主義與本國主義兩種立場，各對聯邦最高法院之決定有不同之態度。雙方立論之核心差異，在於國際主義者認為從最高法律條款能推知有同等待遇理論，其要求條約之效力應與國會立法相當，從而應避免將條約解釋為非自動履行之規定；然而，本國主義者卻認為憲法並未有此要求。聯邦最高法院在Medellin案之論述，係以條約之規定未明確表述其自動履行性而認其為非自動履行條款，被認為是首次採取了特定之立場，是以國際主義者對法院之多數意見多有批評，而本國主義者則較贊同之。有鑑於Medellin案之討論對自動履行理論十分重要，本文將以該案作為討論中心，評估法院多數意見與不同意見之見解，並參酌國際主義與本國主義之意見，而後試圖判斷究應以何標準區分自動履行與非自動履行條約。本文認為，Medellin案之結果顯然表示，大法官不贊成國際主義之同等待遇理論，反而認為應承認締約機關之形成自由，從而有權決定條約在國內之執行方式。職是，關於條約之規定究竟能否自動履行之問題，法院仍應審酌締約機關於批准條約時之意見，而不應取代政治部門之決定，逕推定其為自動履行或非自動履行條約。在條約未直接與憲法相牴觸之情況下，非自動履行條約可認為是政策決定之結果，亦即締約機關期待經由其他方式執行條約，而非由法院在案件中直接加以適用。如此，條約雖不能自動履行，仍應具有國內法之效力。

關鍵字

非自動履行條約；最高法律條款；國內法地位；可司法適用性；意圖；條約

並列摘要

In Taiwan, the courts and scholars generally agree that treaties concluded with consent of the Legislative Yuan should have force of domestic law, but there are still questions about their applicability in the court. To answer that question, there is a doctrine of self-executing treaties, which is first addressed by the Supreme Court of the U.S., stating that only self-executing treaties are judicially enforceable, while non-self-executing treaties are not. The doctrine is so confusing, because the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides that all treaties shall be the supreme law of the land, and the courts of the U.S. are obliged to enforce them. Thus, there must be good reasons for the Supreme Court to refuse enforcing non-self-executing treaties. The purpose of this article is, by researching the doctrine of self-execution in the U.S., to explain the reason of the unenforceability of non-self-executing treaties and its domestic law status. In 2008, the Supreme Court in Medellin v. Texas said the Article 94 of U.N. Charter was not self-executing, which made great impact on the doctrine, and thus was seriously criticized. In the U.S., the understanding to the doctrine is divided into the transnationalism and the nationalism, they are in different attitude toward the decision. The transnationalists are critical to the Medellin case, arguing that by the requirement of equivalent treatment of the Supremacy Clause treaties shall be presumed to be self-executing. On the contrary, the nationalists advocate the decision, believing there is no such requirement in the Constitution. The Medellin case is so special, because it is the first time for the Supreme Court to make its statement clearly in opposite to the transnationalism. In light of the importance of the Medellin case, this article will focus on the decision itself and the debate between the transnationalism and the nationalism to find the better criteria to the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. This article find that the majority of the Justices in Medellin case didn’t agree with the transnationalists, and decided to show deference to the treaty construction of the treaty maker who concluded the non-self-executing treaties. In this way, there should be no presumptions in solving the problem of self-execution, and the non-self-executing treaty still has domestic force as long as it does not contradict the Constitution.

並列關鍵字

Non-self-executing Treaty ； Supremacy Clause ； Domestic Law Status ； Judicial Enforceability ； Intention ； Treaty

參考文獻

3.王震宇，WTO與區域貿易協定之締結與適用─從最高行政法院九十六年度判字第一九八六號判決談起，月旦法學雜誌，第195期，2011年。

4.廖福特，法院應否及如何適用《經濟社會文化權利國際公約》，台灣人權學刊，第1卷第1期，2011年。

6.蕭雄淋，大英百科全書官司攻防戰（七）─最高法院發回後有關中美條約適用的爭執（下），律師通訊，第161期，1993年。

1.DAVID SLOSS eds., THE ROLE OF DOMESTIC COURTS IN TREATY ENFORCEMENT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY (2009).

4.LOUIS HENKIN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (2nd ed. 1996)

國際替代計量

由美國聯邦最高法院Medellin v. Texas案論非自動履行條約在美國國內法之地位

主題瀏覽