| 關 鍵 詞： |
國際人權法；歐洲人權公約第 8 條；私人與家庭生活；歐洲共識原則；維護善良風俗；評斷餘地原則；比例原則；歐洲人權法院；普世性；相對性 |
| 中文摘要： |
個人主義在歐洲私人與家庭生活保障中的興盛，使得《歐洲人權公約》第 8 條成為傳統道德或倫理框架的主要挑戰者。歐洲監督主要以「歐洲共識」原則為憑，藉以評價國家對相關事務之干預是否無違《歐洲人權公約》。當締約國就系爭議題出現「共同點」時，被告國之評斷餘地即遭縮限。此規則同樣適用於國家以維護善良風俗為名之干預。而既然道德倫理價值因地而異並可能與時倶變，國家就相關事務一般享有寬裕裁量權。然而，這並不妨礙歐洲共識的介入，歐洲共識仍得以比例權衡工具的角色，評價系爭干預。
歐洲共識的要件，尤其包含歐洲層級之相關官方文件或判決先例，以及締約國內國法或處理方式之比較分析。此外，當事國社會顯示之各類演變跡象，也經常被提出做為「共同改革趨勢」之佐證。此揭要件之間，本文發現，即便當個案中之「歐洲共同點」說服力顯得差強人意，被告國內國法體系內任何能指出轉變格局的明確指標，都可能被歐洲人權法院視為確認歐洲共識存在的關鍵。反之，就道德或人倫議題，強烈的社會反抗，將促使歐洲人權法院於裁判中展現司法自制。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
International Human Rights Law；Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights；Private and Family Life；European Consensus；Protection of the Morals；Margin of Appreciation；Proportionality；European Court of Human Rights；Universality；Relativity |
| 英文摘要： |
That individualism is well developed in the European protection of private and family life makes Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights a major challenger of traditional moral or ethic frameworks. The European supervision relies a priori on the "European consensus" to assess the conventionality of State’s interference in morals-related matters. When Contracting Parties find a "common denominator" on a subject-matter, only limited margin of appreciation would be left to the defending State. The same rule applies to State’s interference in the name of morals protection. As moral and ethic values vary from one place to another and may change over time, States normally enjoy a large latitude in this domain. At the same time, the European consensus could still serve as a tool of proportionality evaluation of a disputed interference.
Supporting elements of a European consensus include, inter alia, relative instruments or case-law adopted at the European level and a comparative analysis of the domestic law or approach of Contracting States. Besides, different stages of evolution in society in issue are often mentioned as evidence of a "reforming trend." Among these elements, this paper finds that even when the "European common ground" doesn’t seem so evident in a particular case, any obvious indicator showing a changing pattern within the legal system of the defending State could be considered by the Court as a key to confirm the existence of a consensus. By contrast, in moral or ethical issues, a strong social resistance to change could contribute to a judgement revealing judicial restraint of the Court.
|
| 目 次： |
前言
壹、歐洲共識與善良風俗的對抗－規則的建立
一、普世性與相對性並行不悖
（一）歐洲人權法釋義原則的建構
（二）私人與家庭生活的歐洲共識
二、評斷餘地與比例原則的衡量
（一）歐洲共識的形成與善良風俗的退位
（二）歐洲共識的欠缺與善良風俗的合法
貳、歐洲共識與善良風俗的對抗－困局與例外
一、私人與家庭生活規範之適用條文位階問題
（一）人身自主權的界限：生命保障及禁止虐待
（二）自由組織家庭的局限：締結婚姻權
二、歐洲共識原則的失靈？
（一）以趨勢為逆轉公序良俗之道？
（二）少數良俗與歐洲多數能否共存？
結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|