輔仁法學第68期

世界衛生組織於2003年通過《世界衛生組織菸草控制框架公約》迄今，菸害問題依然是國際公共衛生治理的焦點。各國政府面臨著菸害的公共衛生挑戰；全球每年約有 800 萬人死於菸害。菸草流行（tobacco epidemic）不滅的重要原因是菸草產業的抵制；菸品包裝措施也是菸草公司的主要挑戰對象。菸草公司透過國內訴訟、國際爭端解決機制和政策遊說等活動，試圖阻礙各國政府採取嚴格的菸品包裝措施，包含素面包裝措施。澳洲在世界貿易組織與國際投資仲裁關於菸品素面措施案件的勝利，鼓舞全球推進菸品包裝管制政策。菸品包裝措施標準化趨勢也為我國的菸草控制政策指示下一步。在支持將菸品素面包裝措施納入我國法規範之前，本文主要檢視我國既有菸品包裝規範的實際運作，透過比較法分析點出我國與其他國家的立法差異。具體問題為：我國與其他國家在菸品包裝管制規範上的異同？我國司法實務在解釋適用現行法時遭遇哪些困難？未來我國若要納入標準化菸品包裝措施需優先考量的政策方向？本文認為跨學科的視角和比較法研究方法，可促進司法實務對於公共衛生政策的理解，並強化相關案件的審查適當性，故特別透過國際公共衛生治理的視野豐富法律分析，為我國菸害防制政策的未來提供參考基礎。

關鍵詞：世界衛生組織菸草控制框架公約、世界衛生組織菸草控制框架公約第11條與第13條實施規則、菸品素面包裝措施、菸害防制法、菸品廣告、經驗法則、比例原則

Since the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (the FCTC convention) in 2003, tobacco control policies have remained a focal point of international public health governance. Governments are still confronted with the threats posed by the tobacco epidemic, which stands as one of the most severe public health challenges. Globally, approximately 8 million people are killed by the tobacco epidemic every year. A significant reason for this is the resistance from the tobacco industry. Tobacco packaging measures are also among the tobacco control measures challenged by tobacco companies. A range of activities, including domestic litigations, international dispute resolution mechanisms, and policy lobbying, are employed by tobacco companies to oppose the adoption of tobacco plain packaging measures in various countries. Australia's victory in a WTO dispute and investor-State dispute arbitration concerning tobacco plain packaging measures significantly propelled worldwide progress in tobacco packaging control policy. The trend of moving towards standardizing tobacco packaging measures sheds light on tobacco control policy in Taiwan. However, before supporting the proposal of incorporating plain packaging measures into Taiwan’s Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act, this paper reviews the implementation of existing tobacco control regulations on monitoring tobacco packaging. It also indicates the differences in tobacco packaging control regulations between Taiwan and other countries. Through the case study and comparative jurisprudence analysis, specific issues this paper addresses include: What are the similarities and differences between Taiwan's regulations and those of other countries? What difficulties has Taiwan's judicial system encountered while interpreting and applying the existing regulations on tobacco packaging? And what are the crucial issues to be considered in the future amendment of tobacco packaging regulations in Taiwan? To answer these questions, this article provides perspectives from international public health governance to enrich legal analyses and lay the groundwork for suggesting the next steps for Taiwan’s tobacco control policy. The authors believe an interdisciplinary perspective and a comparative study approach can deepen the understanding of public health policy and strengthen the rationale and persuasiveness of judicial review in tobacco packaging disputes.

Keywords: WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Guidelines for the FCTC Implementation (Articles 11 and 13), Tobacco Plain Packaging Measure, Taiwan’s Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act, Tobacco Advertisement, the Rule of Experiences, the Principle of Proportionality

壹、前言
貳、菸品包裝管制措施的國際規範
參、各國關於菸品包裝規範的發展重點與規範趨同
一、澳洲
二、英國
三、新加坡
四、加拿大
五、紐西蘭
六、泰國
七、小結
肆、我國的菸品包裝管制規範與司法實務操作
一、《菸害防制法》關於菸品包裝的規定
二、司法實務對於涉及菸品包裝行政裁罰爭議案件的見解演進
三、我國現行菸品包裝管制所存在的實務操作疑義
伍、我國未來調整菸品包裝規範的建議
一、重新確立菸品包裝與廣告的管制邏輯以回應實務操作的疑義
二、因應新類型菸品的市場發展以完善菸品包裝管制措施
陸、結論

家庭暴力被國際人權法視為是破壞婦女人權的行為。聯合國消除對婦女一切性別歧視公約及一般性建議提供家暴防治的建議。但台灣的家暴防治措施有忽略原住民婦女生活經驗的傾向。本文透過文獻探討和台中市家暴暨性侵害防治中心等社工單位的家暴防治宣導活動之參與觀察，希望能夠讓人權概念以地方方言轉譯並使之落實於台灣。本文也與台中市和平區原住民家庭服務中心的原住民社工們座談，以瞭解原家中心處理與防治家暴的情形。本文發現，上述公約第19號一般性建議確實提供泰雅部落經濟暴力產生的可能態樣之解釋，可供社工單位於進行家暴防治宣導活動之參考。然而，該類活動與泰雅部落環境有落差，在上述公約第19號及第35號的一般性建議，又均僅建議國家應採取有效措施以對抗充滿性別歧視的傳統慣習。筆者認為，將家暴防治的人權保障概念轉譯為地方方言不應只是由上而下的單行道，地方上的觀點也應由下而上地被傳譯。雖有學者表示，泰雅族是父系社會，其傳統文化易導致婦女遭受家暴被視為理所當然，但依本文於泰雅部落的訪談紀錄，泰雅傳統慣習會要求男性尊重女性。此傳統文化應可透過國中本土語課程被重新建構起來。泰雅族傳統在台灣社會不應遭受誤解並被視為是次等文化。

關鍵詞：人權、家庭暴力、原住民慣習、泰雅族、原住民

Domestic violence has been recognized by international human rights law as a form of violation of women’s human rights. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (‘CEDAW’) and its associated recommendations provide measures designed to redress violence against women. However, remedies for domestic violence in Taiwan tend to ignore the life experiences of indigenous women. To make human rights in vernacular, literature review and participant observation of an educational propaganda offered by the Centre for Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault are carried out. Group discussion with the social workers of the Indigenous Family Service Centre is also conducted. It is found that the general recommendation No.19 of CEDAW does provide a possible explanation concerning economic violence in the Atayal tribes. Nevertheless, only the customs that may justify gender-based violence are mentioned in the recommendation No.19 and the recommendation No.35, and the states parties are suggested to take effective measures in order to overcome these practices.
In my opinion, the translation of human rights into the local vernacular should not be a one-way street. Grassroots perspectives should be translated ‘up’ as well. Some scholars maintain that the Atayal society is patrilineal, and its tradition may perpetuate violence against women. According to the interviews with senior leaders of the Atayal tribes, however, it might be argued that the Atayal culture would require men to respect women, and such custom should be reconstructed. The Atayal tradition should not be misunderstood and regarded as an inferior culture in Taiwan.
The strategies to prevent domestic violence might be combined with the curriculum of native languages. When talking about the wedding ceremonies practiced in the Atayal tribes, for example, the senior members of the family would give the newlyweds their blessings and tell them that they should respect each other forever so that they would love each other and have a lot of offspring.



Keywords: Human Rights, Domestic Violence, Indigenous Custom,Atayal, Indigenous People

壹、前言
貳、自國際人權保障談原住民家庭暴力問題之改善
參、原住民之性別／家庭文化與家庭暴力防治
肆、研究方法論
伍、泰雅族受暴婦女的處境與困境：社工單位的觀點
陸、原住民於家庭暴力防治宣導活動的處境：家庭暴力防治宣導活動之參與觀察
柒、泰雅原住民於透過人權概念推展家庭暴力防治概念時的處境
一、經濟型家庭暴力的原住民處境及防治
二、泰雅族人於精神暴力及肢體暴力之處境與防治之道
捌、結論與建議

美國雖在承諾宗教自由擁有長遠之歷史，然其憲法亦保障所有人在法律面前之平等。宗教自由與其他法律產生緊張關係，尤其是公共場所交易法，宗教自由條款乃制定以保護多元宗教實踐方式，惟特定之宗教實踐之表達卻造成非宗教群體之傷害，特別是對於「非異性戀群體」，該等趨勢充分地顯現在近來之美國婚禮業者案例，2018年Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission案及2023年303 Creative v. Elenis案，兩案均起因於「科羅拉多州反歧視法」，均包含商業經營者在宗教信仰上反對同性婚姻，拒絕提供服務予同性婚姻伴侶，Masterpiece Cakeshop案將這個美國憲法增修條文第1條與反歧視法交會困難且精緻之問題留下，讓303 Creative案有機會接手處理，再度審酌反歧視及宗教自由間之繃緊關係。美國最高法院提供兼容並蓄之途徑，而多元化即為其背後之價值，歷史上，宗教上之豁免提供少數族群免於受制於一般適用之法律，平等權及宗教自由均為重要之憲法權利，劃定其間之界線自非易事。本文爬梳兩案之脈絡，期能藉由實務與理論之探討，在未來我國出現類似場景時，能提供相關啟示。而我國未來平等法立法在公共場所交易面臨類如Masterpiece Cakeshop案、303 Creative v. Elenis案之爭議時，建議應有宗教豁免之空間，雖然該等空間應以最小且必要為限，並提出條文之試擬及相關論述以供參考。

關鍵詞：反歧視、平等保護、宗教自由、言論自由、宗教豁免、公共場所交易、宗教敵意、強迫言論

While the United States has a longstanding commitment to religious freedom, its Constitution also guarantees all Americans equal protection under the law. These religious freedoms can come into tension with the laws, in particular, public accommodations laws. Yet certain expressions of free exercise have entailed harms to those outside the religious community, especially LGBTQ persons. This trend has been acutely present in the recent wedding-vendor cases: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2018, 303 Creative v. Elenis in 2023. Both cases arose in Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not fully resolve that issue, deferring to future cases resolution of the various “difficult” and “delicate” questions that the case raised about the intersection of the First Amendment with antidiscrimination law. The Court’s second bite at the apple, 303 Creative LLC. v. Elenis. Pluralism is commonly invoked as a core value that justifies religious accommodation. In history of the United States, the religious exemptions minorities from general applicable laws has been a complex issue, where the rights to equality and religious freedom are of utmost importance. Drawing the line between these rights is surely a very challenging task. This article tries to examine the context of two cases, aiming to explore the practical and theoretical aspects. It is hoped that through this discussion, insights can be gained to provide guidance in similar situations that may arise in our country in the near future. When our country enacts equality laws and faces disputes similar to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and the 303 Creative v. Elenis case regarding transactions in public spaces in the United States, it is recommended that there should be room for religious exemptions. Although such exemptions ought to be limited to the minimum necessary, draft provisions and related discussions are proposed for reference.


Keywords: Anti-Discrimination, Equal Protection, Religious Freedom,Free Speech, Religious Exemptions, Public Accommodation, Hostility, Compelled Speech

壹、前言 
貳、美國最高法院近期相關判決
一、2018年Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission案
二、2023年303 Creative v. Elenis案
三、場景之異同
四、小結
參、公共場所交易法
一、歷史
二、立法目的
三、定義
四、要件分析
五、爭議
六、小結
肆、反歧視與美國憲法增修條文第1條
一、反歧視法
二、美國憲法增修條文第1條
三、價值之折衝
四、小結
伍、給予我國之啟示
一、面對不同憲法價值
二、反歧視法下之宗教豁免
三、小結
陸、結語

依民法第823條第1項規定：「各共有人，除法令另有規定外，得隨時請求分割共有物。但因物之使用目的不能分割或契約訂有不分割之期限者，不在此限。」而農舍辦法第12條第2項有關限制分割之規定是否即屬上開條文所稱因法令不得分割之限制，係本文之主要研究對象。
依農發條例第18條第5項授權訂定之農舍辦法第12條第2項規定，已申請興建農舍之農業用地應予套繪，且未經解除套繪管制不得辦理分割。此一規定自施行以來，於地政實務與司法實務間產生許多爭議。此等爭議比較法上甚為罕見，為我國特有規定所生之問題。本文首先，就司法實務對相關議題之見解進行類型化之綜整；其次，研析實務見解所生之三大議題，包括：其一，農舍辦法第12條第2項是否逾越農發條例第18條第5項之授權範圍？其二，農舍辦法第12條第2項如何適用於耕地？其三，農舍辦法第12條第2項是否適用於其增訂前已興建農舍之農業用地？此外，近來不少實務見解認為，農舍辦法第12條第2項之限制分割，應以達成規範目的之範圍為限，倘分割方法及結果無礙於規範目的達成，應不在限制分割之列，此一發展趨勢十分值得關注與重視，將併同於第一議題中討論。


關鍵詞：農業用地、耕地、農舍、套繪管制、分割登記、溯及適用

According to Article 823, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code: “Unless otherwise provided by the statutes, each co-owner is entitled to demand at any time the partition of the thing held in indivision, except in consequence of the purpose of using such thing that makes partition impossible, or a covenant that provides a period of non-partition.” The main research question of this article is whether the restriction on partition in Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the Regulation for Agricultural Lands Constructing Farmhouse falls under the statutory restriction on partition mentioned above.
In accordance with the provision authorized by Article 18, Paragraph 5 of the Agricultural Development Act, Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the Regulation for Agricultural Lands Constructing Farmhouse provides that agricultural land for which farmhouse construction has been applied shall be subject to the cadastral map overlay regulation, and shall not be partitioned until the cadastral map overlay restriction is lifted. This provision has generated many disputes between land administration practices and judicial opinions since its implementation, a rare issue in comparative law, due to our country’s unique regulations. This article first summarizes judicial opinions on the relevant issues, and subsequently analyzes three major issues: (1) whether Article 12, Paragraph 2 exceeds the authorization scope of Article 18, Paragraph 5 of the Agricultural Development Act; (2) how it should be applied to arable land; and (3) whether it applies to agricultural land with farmhouses built prior to the provision’s enactment. Furthermore, many judicial opinions have recently suggested that the restriction on partition in Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the Regulation for Agricultural Lands Constructing Farmhouse should be limited to achieving regulatory objectives. If the method and outcome of partition do not hinder the achievement of regulatory objectives, agricultural land should not be restricted from partition. This emerging trend is highly deserving of our attention and will be discussed alongside the first issue.


Keywords: Agricultural land, Arable land, Farmhouses, Cadastral Map Overlay Regulation, Registration of the Partition, Retroactive application

壹、前言
貳、農業用地興建農舍後管制之基礎概念與理論
一、農發條例第18條第4項之規範意旨
二、農舍辦法第12條第2項增列套繪禁止分割之目的
三、農舍辦法第12條第3、4項得予解除套繪之例外
四、民法第823條第1項所定之「法令另有規定」
五、農業用地與耕地概念之區別及其所引發之問題
參、實務見解綜覽
一、農舍辦法第12條第2項規定是否逾越母法之授權範圍
（一）已逾越母法授權範圍之見解
（二）未逾越母法授權範圍之見解
（三）未逾農舍辦法第12條第2項管制目的範圍內仍得分割
二、農舍辦法第12條第2項應如何適用於耕地
（一）得予分割但受套繪管制
（二）與農業用地同受不得分割之限制
三、農舍辦法第12條第2項是否適用於其增訂前已興建農舍之農業用地
（一）最高行政法院
（二）最高法院
肆、實務見解研析
一、農舍辦法第12條第2項規定是否逾越母法之授權範圍
（一）自農發條例第18條第1項言
（二）自農發條例第18條第4項言
（三）自農發條例第18條第5項言
（四）自比例原則考量言
（五）自解為未逾越母法已有例外解決之道言
二、農舍辦法第12條第2項應如何適用於耕地
（一）自農業用地及耕地規定之文義言
（二）自條文之立法意旨言
（三）自防範可能發生之弊端言
三、農舍辦法第12條第2項是否適用於其增訂前已興建農舍之農業用地
（一）農發條例89年1月4日修正施行前已興建農舍之農業用地
（二）農發條例89年1月4日修正施行後農舍辦法102年7月1日修正施行前已興建農舍之農業用地
伍、結論