工作權是國民權或人權？：從勞動權人權化之辯論與「能力進路」觀點反思工作權之定性

Is the Constitutional Right to Work a Right of Nationals or Everyone? : Revisiting the Debate through a Capabilities-Approach Response to Objections against Human-rightisation of Labour Rights

楊雅雯(Ya-Wen Yang)

《臺大法學論叢》 51卷3期 (2022/09) Pp. 537-615

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.202209_51(3).0001

摘要

工作權在憲法主流學說多認為係國民權而非人權，排除對外國人的就業機會與工作條件之憲法保護，學說惜未顧及國際勞動權人權化的趨勢，以及勞動權利與規範的目標、和國家角色。然而憲法工作權的發展，應關照並受益於勞動規範討論的洞見，本文因此欲藉英語勞動法學界對「勞動權是人權嗎？」的辯論，來反思國民權定性的顧慮與預設，進而主張憲法上工作權應是人權的立場。對勞動權之人權化抱持懷疑的學者，擔憂人權體系內，經濟社會權利弱勢及人權司法化與個人化的特性，將使勞動權邊緣化；懷疑就業機會與工作條件間的交換關係使就業不值得成為人權；或強調勞動權固有的在地、社會與政治性，仰賴邊界的存在，從而否定勞動權是人權。這與憲法國民權論述將工作權主要視為經濟資源分配，而應限國民享用並交由日常民主決定的顧慮多所呼應。但本文以受沈恩及納斯邦之能力進路啟發的勞動規範觀點，提出替代的規範框架，主張與工作相關之權利與規範，目的在培育人的能力並擴大與健全市場，並非零和之資源分配，國籍並非合適邊界，納入領域內所有勞動關係的參與者，更能貼合權利的實際運作與目的。

關鍵字

就業權 ； 工作權 ； 勞動權 ； 國民權 ； 人權 ； 社會權 ； 邊界 ； 能力進路 ； 國際勞工組織 ； 經濟社會文化權利國際公約

並列摘要

The constitutional rights to and at work is conventionally categorised as Staatsbürgerrecht (rights of nationals), rather than Jedermannsrecht (human rights). Foreigners are thus considered not entitled to such rights. However, this view is in sharp contrast with 'human-rightisation' of international labour rights. More importantly, it fails to consider the purpose and role of labour rights and laws. This paper suggests that the constitutional debate about the nature of rights about work should be informed by the developments of international labour rights, and labour law scholars' insights about the aim of labour laws. This paper challenges the Staatsbürgerrecht view from a labour-law-oriented perspective. By engaging the lively debate, 'are labour rights human rights?', this paper argues that the constitutional right to work and rights at work should be human rights. Some commentators reject that labour rights are human rights because, allegedly, human-rightisation prioritises civil and political rights, while marginalising economic, social and cultural rights, hence labour rights. Some commentators doubt whether access to work is worthy of being a right if the access can be facilitated by lower working conditions. Some further argue that labour rights necessitate a national boundary, which is in constant tension with the universal tendency of human rights. Underlying these scepticisms is the perception that rights about work are a zero-sum game of resource distribution, to which foreigners should not join. Notably, the same perception is shared by the literature of the Staatsbürgerrecht view regarding the constitutional rights to and at work. This paper offers an alternative normative framework for labour rights with the insight of the capacities approach. The capacities approach perceives labour rights as the means to cultivate fundamental human capacities. To this aim, all workers, regardless of nationality, by their very participation in the labour market, should be protected by the constitutional rights to and at work.

並列關鍵字

Right to Work ； Rights at Work ； Labour Rights ； Rights of Nationals ； Human Rights ； Social Rights ； Boundaries ； Capabilities Approach ； International Labour Organization ； International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights

參考文獻

蔡宗珍（2006），〈營業自由之保障及其限制：最高行政法院 2005 年 11 月22 日庭長法官聯席會議決議評釋〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，35 卷3 期，頁 277-321。https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2006.35.03.04

黃越欽（2000），〈憲法中工作權之意義暨其演進〉，《法令月刊》，51 卷10 期，頁 34-55。https://doi.org/10.6509/TLM.200010_51(10).0006

Anderson, E. (2015). Equality and Freedom in the Workplace: Recovering Republican Insights. Social Philosophy and Policy, 31(2), 48-69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052514000259

Anderson, E. (1999). What Is the Point of Equality? Ethics, 109(2), 287-337. https://doi.org/10.1086/233897

Arthurs, H. (2006). Who’s Afraid of Globalization? Reflections on the Future of Labour Law. In J. D. R. Craig, & S. M. Lynk (Eds.), Globalization and the Future of Labour Law (pp. 51-74). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495304.003