THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND MORALS - THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

表現自由權與健康及道德之保護－歐洲人權公約案例研究

廖福特(Fort Fu-Te Liao)

The Right to Freedom of Expression ； Protection of Health and Morals ； European Convention on Human Rights ； European Court of Human Rights ； the Principle of Proportionality ； 表現自由 ； 健康及道德保護 ； 歐洲人權公約 ； 歐洲人權法院 ； 判斷餘地原則

歐美研究

30卷1期（2000 / 03 / 01）

159 - 217

英文

This essay analyses how and where the European Commission and Court of Human Rights draw the line between the guarantee of the right to freedom of expression and the protection of health and morals by a detailed study of the case-law of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It argues that the institutions of the Convention, by referring too much to the doctrine of margin of appreciation, limited the protection of the right to freedom of expression. On the other hand, by judging that limiting the provision of abortion information did not comply with Article 10 of the Convention, the Court enhanced the guarantee of the right. It also argues that the institutions should not put too much emphasis on the 〞principle of subsidiary〞 and the 〞doctrine of margin of appreciation,〞 as the institutions themselves have been the product of a 〞European consensus〞 exercising 〞international judicial review.〞 Rather, the institutions should apply the 〞doctrine of proportionality〞 and try to establish a 〞European standard〞 for protecting the right to freedom of expression.

本文探討歐洲人權公約第十條之案例法中，保護表現自由權及維護健康及道德如何平衡。本文認為，歐洲人權機構給予各簽約國廣泛之「判斷餘地原則」，因而其並未妥善保障表現自由權。然而歐洲人權法院認為限制墮胎資訊之提供乃是違反公約第十條之規定，此意見加強表現自由權之保護，同時其亦表示，即使是各簽約國之具爭議性之憲法規定，亦需接受歐洲人權法院之審查，而歐洲人權法院已開始走向成為「歐洲憲法法院」之路程。本文認為歐洲人權機構不應過度強調「判斷餘地原則」及「輔助性原則」，因為歐洲人權機構本身即為「歐洲共識」之產品，而其所施行者為「國際司法審查」，因而歐洲人權機構應以「比例原則」檢視各案件以建立「歐洲準則」。

1. (1979).Collected Editions of the 'Travaux Preparatorires' of the European Convention on Human Rights, Vol. V.London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
2. (1991).Speech by Rolv Ryssdal, President of the European Court of Human Rights on 5 November 1990, Cour (90) 289.Strasbourg:Council of Europe.
3. Barendt, Eric(1985).Freedom of Speech.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
4. Bernhardt, Rudolf(1998).Speech on the Occasion of the Diplomatic Conference on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.Council of Europe.
5. Bernhardt, Rudolf(1988).Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension.Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.
6. Brems, Eva(1996).The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights.Heidelberg Journal of International Law,56
7. Carozza, Paolo G.(1998).Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law in International Human Rights: Some Reflections on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.Notre Dame Law Review,73
8. Delmas-Marty, Mireille(1992).The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: International Protection versus National Restriction.The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publisher.
9. Delmas-Marty, Mireille, Soulier, Gerard(1992).The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: International Protection versus National Restriction.The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publisher.
10. Feingold, Cora(1978).The Little Red Schoolbook and the European Convention on Human Rights.Human Rights Review,3
11. Feingold, Cora S.(1977).The Doctrine of Margin of Appreciation and the European Convention on Human Rights.Notre Dame Lawyer,53
12. Gomien, Donna, Harris, David, Zwaak, Leo(1996).Law and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter.Council of Europe Publishing.
13. Harris, D. J.(1976).Decisions on the European Convention on Human Rights During 1975-1976.British Yearbook of International Law,48
14. Harris, D. J., O''Boyle, M., Warbrick, C.(1995).Law of the European Convention on Human Rights.Butterworths:
15. Helfer, Laurence R.(1993).Consensus Coherence and the European Convention on Human Rights.Cornell International Law Journal,26
16. Jacobs, Francis G.(1975).The European Convention on Human Rights.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
17. Janis, Mark(1984).Individuals as Subjects of International Law.Cornell International Law Journal,17
18. Janis, Mark, Kay, Richard, Bradley, Anthony(1995).European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
19. Jones, Timothy H.(1995).The Devaluation of Human Rights under the European Convention.Public Law
20. Kearns, Paul(1998).The Legal Concept of Art.Oxford:Hart Publishing.
21. Kelly, John(1982).Protection of Human Rights in Europe: Limits and Effects.C. F. Muller Juristischer Verlag.
22. Koering-Joulin, Renee(1992).The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: International Protection versus National Restriction.The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publisher.
23. Lester, Anthony(1998).University versus Subsidiarity: A Reply.European Human Rights Law Review
24. Lester, Anthony(1996).8th International Colloquy on the European Convention on Human Rights.Strasbourg:Council of Europe.
25. Macdonald, R. St J.(1993).The European System for the Protection of Human Rights.London:Nijhoff.
26. Mahoney, Paul(1990).Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin.Human Rights Law Journal,11
27. Mahoney, Paul(1997).University versus Subsidiarity in the Strasbourg Case Law on Free Speech: Explaining Some Recent Judgments.European Human Rights Law Review
28. Merills, J. G.(1989).Decision on the European Convention on Human Rights During 1988.British Yearbook of International Law,59
29. Merrills, J. G.(1993).The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights.Manchester:Manchester University Press.
30. Morrisson, Jr. Clovis C.(1973).Margin of Appreciation in Human Rights Law.Revue Des Droits De L'Homme,6
31. Mosler, H.(1980).Essays on the Development of the International Legal Order: In Memory of Haro F. van Panhuys.London:Sijhoff ＆ Noodhoff.
32. O''Donnell, Thomas A.(1982).The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Standards in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.Human Rights Quarterly,4
33. Pannick, David(1993).Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.King's College Law Journal,4
34. Pannick, David(1995).Criminal Justice and Human Rights Vol. 1 of Pressing Problems in the Law.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
35. Robertson, A. H., Merrills, J. G.(1993).Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights.Manchester:Manchester University Press.
36. Ryssdal, Rolv(1992).Speech before Conference of Presidents and Attorney Generals of the Supreme Court of the European Communities.Council of Europe.
37. Ryssdal, Rolv(1992).Fourth Judicial Colloquium on the Domestic Application of International Human Rights Norms Vol. 4 of Developing Human Rights Jurisprudence.London:Commonwealth Secretariat.
38. Ryssdal, Rolv(1990).The Future of the European Court of Human Rights.Council of Europe.
39. Schermers, Henry G.(1994).The Eleventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.European Law Review,19
40. Schermers, Henry G.(1997).Active of Hyper-Active European Courts?.Oxford:Centre for the Advanced Study of European and Comparative Law, University of Oxford.
41. Shelton, Dinah(1993).Broadening the Frontiers of Human Rights: Essays in Honour of Asbjorn Eide.Stockholm:Scandinavian University Press.
42. Tomkins, Adam(1997).European Civil Liberties and the European Convention on Human Rights: A Comparative Study.London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
43. van Dijk, P., van Hoof, G. J. H.(1990).Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights.The Netherlands:Kluwer Law and Taxation Publisher.
44. Waldock, Humphrey(1980).The Effectiveness of the System Set up by the European Convention on Human Rights.Human Rights Law Journal,1
45. Warbrick, Colin(1998).Importing the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech and Expression in Britain, Europe and the USA.Oxford:Hart Publishing.
46. Yourow, H. C.(1987).The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of European Human Rights Jurisprudence.Connecticut Journal of International Law,3
47. Yourow, Howard Charles(1996).The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of European Human Rights Jurisprudence.London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

1. 李仲軒(2022)。歐洲人權法下國家應對氣候變遷的積極義務：以荷蘭Urgenda一案為例。台灣國際法學刊，19(1)，7-46。
2. (2000)。歐洲人權法院—歷史、組織、職權及程序。思與言：人文與社會科學雜誌，38(4)，67-115。
3. (2009)。建構國家收集與留存個人生物特徵資料之底線？－歐洲人權法院S. and Marper v. UK判決評析－。臺灣法學雜誌，141，49-64。