我國政治難民庇護政策之研究

A Study of Taiwan's Asylum Policy

李浩銘(Hao-Ming Lee)

指導教授 ： 吳秀玲

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700146

摘要

根據立法院審查完竣之《難民法草案》，我國未來擬接收之政治難民即難民公約（《難民地位公約》和《難民地位議定書》）所定義之難民。另為保障陸港澳人民之庇護權，我國早已在《臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例》、《香港澳門關係條例》中立法，授權政府得基於政治理由專案許可陸港澳人民在臺居留、定居，藉此迴避定義中的「跨越國境」意涵。本研究旨在透過制度的研究途徑，應用歷史研究法和比較研究法，對我國建置政治難民庇護制度提出建設性意見，主要研究發現如後。第一，以政治難民為保護對象並強調國家主權優先的難民公約保護機制，已無法適應冷戰結束後的移民潮衝擊。因國際社會迄今仍未形成改革共識，故當前難民問題的解決仍仰賴於各國的自助行為，卻也導致聯合國難民署倡議之「長遠的解決方案」進展緩慢、「不推回」原則仍經常遭各國忽視等問題。第二，我國審議《難民法草案》參考之六締約國（德國、南韓、英國、加拿大、美國、日本）皆有「人道保護」機制，提供仍有受迫害風險之非難民適當保護。然而，六締約國都拒絕庇護來自或途經安全第三國或安全源出國者。第三，政府過去給予來臺之中南半島難民國民待遇，並授以定居和歸化之權利，證明我國曾落實難民公約精神。目前的《難民法草案》內容亦大致符合難民公約，惟仍欠缺有關保障申訴人停留權利之規定。另外，鑑於聯合國難民署忌憚於中華人民共和國政府所謂的「一個中國」原則，故政府恐難以和此機構建立直接聯繫管道。
本研究建議，政府應積極配合落實「普世價值」的國際規範，並持續善用國內外非政府組織合作機制，俾利我國實際參與國際難民保護事務。有關機關應儘快將「人道保護」入法、明定初步審查處理期限，並保障申訴人的停留權利及難民的永久居留權。此外，為兼顧國際法、我國憲政及現實需求，立法院應修法將陸港澳人民庇護事項準用《難民法》。

關鍵字

中華民國憲法增修條文 ； 自願遣返 ； 政治庇護 ； 重新安置 ； 融入本土

並列摘要

Based on the Draft of Refugee Act which is deliberated by the Legislative Yuan, the political refugees whom may be granted asylum by the government of the Republic of China are in accordance with the “refugees” defined in the “Refugees Convention” (the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees). In addition, to prevent from having the meaning of “cross national boundary” which is part of the definition of political refugees, the government may permit specifically on a case-by-case basis any of the people living in Mainland Area, Hong Kong or Macau to have a residency or permanent residency in Taiwan out of political consideration by the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area or the Laws and Regulations Regarding Hong Kong & Macao Affairs.
In order to propose some constructive suggestions for our country to build the asylum system, this research generalized the disputes in international society through reviewing the changes of contemporary refugee protection regime, and compared with the asylum systems among six contracting parties—Germany, South Korea, British, Canada, United States of America, and Japan—whose asylum laws have been referenced by the National Immigration Agency and the Legislative Yuan. The findings show that the immigration flows caused by the globalization after the end of Cold War is the most important reason for the current refugee problems. Unfortunately, because the international refugee protection regime is still lacking of supranational power, neither the UNHCR’s “durable solutions” are not implemented well at all, nor many of countries do not respect the principle of “non-refoulement” often. Moreover, all of the six contracting parties grant the humanitarian protection to the person whom is not recognized as refugee but still confronted with the risks of being persecuted. Nonetheless, all of these countries reject any person who come from the “safe countries of origins” and/or pass through the “safe third countries”.
Actually, our government ever granted Indochina refugees entering Taiwan the national treatments as well as the rights of permanent residency and naturalization. This fact proved that our country has practiced the spirit of “Refugees Convention”, and the Draft of Refugee Act is also in conformity with this convention. Nevertheless, there is none article to guarantee the petitioners against the deportation in this draft act. Besides, it is predictable that our government will hardly build a direct contact with the UNHCR because this agency does not intent to give offence to the “One-China Principle” which is defined by the PRC government. Notwithstanding this, our government has been not only utilizing the transnational NGO cooperation mechanism, but also initiatively complying with the international norms of the universal values for seeking any meaningful participation in the international humanitarian system. Finally, it is suggested that the relevant authorities should, by revising the bill or enacting rules in the regulations, promote to add the “humanitarian protection” mechanism, stipulate the legal time limit for the preliminary examination, and protect the petitioners from the deportation. Furthermore, giving consideration to the international law, the constitutionalism, and the practical requirements to guarantee the PRC peoples’ rights of asylum, it is proposed that the Refugee Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the asylum matters for the peoples having the PRC nationalities.

並列關鍵字

Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China ； integration ； political asylum ； resettlement ； voluntary repatriation

參考文獻

楊孟軒（2011）。調景嶺：香港「小臺灣」的起源與變遷，1950-1970年代。臺灣史研究，18(1)，133-183。

李明勳（2015）。亞洲價值與人權規範社會化：從東協人權建制的發展與挑戰分析東南亞的人權政治。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。

蔡育岱（2015）。從國際法的角度評議「羅興亞人」難民事件。戰略安全研析，122， 4-11。

國務院臺灣事務辦公室新聞局（2000）。《一個中國的原則與臺灣問題》白皮書及問答。北京市：九州圖書。

吳啟訥（2009）。民族自治與中央集權──1950年代北京藉由行政區劃將民族區域自治導向國家整合的過程。中央研究院近代史研究所集刊，65，81-137。