| 關 鍵 詞： |
SARS；人身自由；營業自由；法官保留；隔離；疫情發佈；風險預防；人權保障 |
| 中文摘要： |
受到全球化與環境、氣候變遷的影響，人類正面臨許多新型態傳染病的威脅，去年爆發的 SARS（嚴重急性呼吸道症候群）便是一例。面對 SARS 的威脅，隔離與及時的疫情發佈成為防治 SARS 的重要手段。隔離與疫情發佈涉及人身自由、營業自由的限制，SARS 防治固然重要，但人權也不能無謂犧牲。只是在 SARS 症狀與傳播途徑尚不明朗的情況下，人權保障與疫情防治間應如何權衡，即有疑問。本文將先說明賦予國家危險防禦與風險預防的任務，對於國家限制基本人權有什麼不同的要求；緊接著以隔離及衛生主管機關的疫情發佈為例，從人身自由與營業自由的保護觀點，說明疫情防治的憲法界限。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
SARS；personal freedom；the freedom to trade；quarantine；public warning against suspected contamination；Habeas Corpus |
| 英文摘要： |
With globalization and change of the environment as well as the climate, human beings are exposed to new contagious diseases. SARS （Serious Aspiration Rapid Syndrome）, bursting out last year, is just one example. Facing the threat of SARS, quarantine and public warning against suspected contamination in time become important preventing tools. However, these measures may infringe on personal freedom and the freedom of trade. The thesis of this essay is: Combating SARS, though important, may not proceed at the price of sacrificing human rights.
Before science detects the essence of SARS virus and how it spreads out, the public health agency has difficulties to balance between protecting human rights and combating SARS disease. Part one of this essay explains theoretically the transition from the defensive to the preventive state. In combating such lethal contagious disease as SARS, the state is called to take preventive actions according to its risk assessment. Hereupon, the constitutional norms contain not only subjective defensive rights against the state; they also serve as a basic constitutional decision, which obliges the state to take sufficient measures to protect the fundamental rights. Based on this perspective, the second part highlights the constitutional limit of quarantine. The constitutional requirements, which public warning against suspected contamination has to comply with, are analyzed in part three.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、暴風雨前的寧靜？
貳、從危險防禦到風險預防
一、自由主義秩序國家
二、SARS 防治與風險決策
參、隔離與人身自由保護
一、人身自由的保護領域與干預型態
二、隔離與法律保留
三、隔離與法的明確性
四、隔離與比例原則
五、隔離與法官保留
（一）功能性解釋
（二）人身自由剝奪一律須法官保留？
（三）德國基本法第 104 條在比較法上為特例
（四）歐洲人權公約與瑞士聯邦憲法的規定
（五）解釋後果考察
六、隔離的正當程序要求
肆、疫情發佈與營業自由
一、傍論：工作權與職業自由
（一）開放性的憲法理解
（二）國際宣言的規定
（三）Weber 論志業倫理與 Marx 論異化勞動
（四）體系解釋
（五）解釋後果考察
二、職業自由保障
（一）職業自由的保護領域
（二）疫情發佈是否構成干預
（三）法律保留與法明確性的侷限
（四）比例原則
（五）基本權利的正當程序
三、財產權保障
伍、SARS 做為我們的導師
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|