| 摘要: | 聯合國消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約（CEDAW）是國際間探討婦女權益的共通對話基準。 我國在2007 年對國際宣示簽署CEDAW，嗣後通過CEDAW 施行法使CEDAW 具有國內法效力，實 有必要促使我國人權保障水準與CEDAW 接軌。CEDAW 強調保障「婦女」人權，表彰的乃是一 種不對稱的平等概念，並將消除對「婦女」結構性歧視作為國家義務，就為加速實現男女事 實上平等而採取的暫行特別措施不視為歧視。本研究探討CEDAW 之男女平等概念與達成男女 實質平等的手段，是否與我國憲法上男女平等原則意涵相符，以及我國法制如何循CEDAW 的 標準落實婦女人權保障。本研究首先釐清CEDAW 定義的歧視內涵、適用領域、達成實質平等 的模式，以及CEDAW 委員會為使公約適應動態發展而發布的一般性建議，尤其委員會在何等 範圍內擴大詮釋公約所指涉之「性別」概念、針對受到多重歧視之婦女（例如高齡、移工婦 女）等新興議題提出的回應與建議，並且深入委員會在個人申訴案件如何為性別分析，以確 定有無歧視的存在。與CEDAW 相較，歐盟採取的是對於兩性（或者所有性別）應同等對待的 禁止歧視模式，將加速實現實質平等的積極措施定位為禁止歧視原則之例外，與我國原則上 禁止因性別而為之差別規定的模式有共通處。本研究第二部份觀察歐盟如何適用與落實男女 平等原則，同時分析歐盟如何調和其與拘束歐盟各會員國的CEDAW 於男女實質平等概念內涵 與達成路徑存在的差異，以供我國因應多層次的人權保障機制競合與合作問題之參考。第三 部份釐清我國憲法條文與釋憲實務所形成之男女實質平等概念，並綜合比較我國與CEDAW 及 歐盟對於男女實質平等與性別歧視概念內涵之異同、促進男女平等措施之容許性與方式，以 期對我國法制如何與CEDAW 之規定與意旨接軌提出建議。
This paper aims at comparing models of substantive equality for women and men between CEDAW, EU and Taiwan. The first part presents definition of discrimination against women under CEDAW, scope of its application and some relevant CEDAW Committee's General Recommendations. For example, the concept “gender” has been introduced and defined in its General Recommendations, although the Convention only refers to sex-based discrimination. Furthermore, the Committee has indicated the issue of intersectional discrimination and made targeted recommendations for the protection of certain groups of women. This section also examines how the Committee made its gender analysis in individual communications to find out the relationship between the social and cultural construction and violations of women’s rights. Compared to CEDAW, the rights to non-discrimination in the EU-Law apply to both (or rather all) genders and assume that men and women should be treated equally. Positive measures to accelerate de facto equality by the EU’s member states are seen, in contrast to CEDAW, as exceptions from the principle of equal treatment and not as state obligations, which is consistent with Taiwan’s model. Thus the second part of the study analyzes EU’s approach to equality of women and men and explores how the EU converges to the standards of CEDAW by which the member states of EU have been bound. This provides references for Taiwan of how to handle different protection standards in multi-level system. The final part clarifies the equality model of Taiwan and makes a comparison between CEDAW, EU and Taiwan. Based on that, this article gives some recommendations on how we should adjust the protection standards of legal system to enforce that of CEDAW. |
