Rights to Liberty and Fair Trial-Sacrificed in the Name of Anti-Terrorism

人身自由權與公平審判權－因反恐之名而犧牲

廖福特(Fort Fu-Te Liao)

right to liberty ； right to fair trial ； anti-terrorism ； 〞USA PATRIOT ACT〞 ； 〞Anti-Terrorism Act 2001〞 ； 人身自由權 ； 公平審判權 ； 反恐 ； 《愛國者法案》 ； 《2001年反恐法》

歐美研究

34卷3期（2004 / 09 / 01）

511 - 553

英文

When a state adheres to international human rights treaties, it is obliged to implement them domestically within its jurisdiction, even in a time of anti-terrorism. This paper therefore examines whether the measures taken in the name of anti-terrorism by the US and the UK are in accordance with international human rights standards. It focuses on three main issues. The first issue relates to the criteria used to define terrorists. Secondly, once identified, how will they be detained, and thirdly how will they be tried? It emphasizes that human rights protections and anti-terrorism measures should not be conflicting aims but parallel goals. It argues that the laws and orders enacted by the US and the UK may not always conform to international human rights standards, and should be rescinded or amended.

當一個國家加入國際人權條約，其有義務在其國內實踐之，即使此國家是處於反恐時期。本文乃檢視美國與英國以反恐之名所採取之法律措施是否符合國際人權標準。本文著重於三項議題。首先，這兩個國家以何種標準定義恐怖份子。其次，所謂恐怖份子所受之待遇為何。第三，他們是如何受審判的。本文強調人權保障與反恐措施不應是衝突的，而應是共存之目標。本文認為美國與英國以反恐之名所制訂之法律及命令，並不盡然都符合國際人權標準，同時亦應廢除或修正。

1. Rights denied: The UK`s response to 11 September 2001 (EUR 45/016/2002)
2. Amnesty International(2002).Rights at risk(AI INDEX: ACT 30/001/2002)
3. Amnesty International(1998).Fair trial manual
4. Amnesty International(2002).United States of America memorandum to the US government on the right of people in US custody in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay (AI INDEX: AMR 51/053/2002)
5. Asrani, S.(2002).Security versus liberty: Striking the right balance.A comparison of anti-terror provisions in India and the United States [Electronic version]
6. The Guardian
7. Bush, G. W.,Jr.(2002).The national security strategy of the United States of America
8. Cassel, D. W.,Jr.(2001).Terrorists on trial: How not to do it [Electronic version].Chicago Daily Law Bulletin,2-3.
9. The state of civil liberties: One year later, erosion of civil liberties in the 9/11 era
10. Department of Defense order on military commissions (Fact sheet)
11. Chang, N.(2002).Silencing political dissent: How post-September 11 anti-terrorism measures threaten our civil liberties
12. Clayton, R.,Tomlinson, H.(2001).Fair trial rights
13. Justice in the Balance Military Commissions and International Criminal Tribunals in a Violent Age
14. Dempsey, J. X.,Cole, D.(2002).Terrorism & the constitution sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security (2nd ed)
15. Dorsen, N.(1997).Civil liberties, national security and human rights treaties: A snapshot in context.UC Davis Journal of International Law and Policy,3,143-158.
16. Fitzpatrick, J.(2003).Speaking law to power: The war against terrorism and human rights.European Journal of International Law,14(2),245-264.
17. French, A. E.(2002).Trials in times of war: Do the Bush military commissions sacrifice our freedom?.Ohio State Law Journal,63(4),1225-1284.
18. Harris, D. J.,O`Boyle, M.,Warbrick, C.(1995).Law of the European convention on human rights
19. Howen, N.(2002).Military force and criminal justice: The US response to 11 September and international law.Paper presented at the International Meeting on Global Trends and Human Rights-Before and After September 11, International Council on Human Rights Policy, Geneva, Switzerland
20. Past U. S. criticism of military tribunals (Fact sheet)
21. Background paper on Geneva conventions and persons held by U. S. forces
22. Commentary on the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001
23. International Committee of the Red Cross(1958).Commentary: Ⅳ Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war
24. International Council on Human Rights Policy(2002).Human rights after September 11
25. Joseph, S.,Schultz, J.,Castan, M(2000).The international covenant on civil and political rights cases, materials, and commentary.
26. Klabbers, J.(2003).Rebel with a cause? Terrorists and humanitarian law.European Journal of International Law,14(2),299-312.
27. Accessing the new normal liberty and security for the post-September 11 United States
28. McGoldrick, D.(1991).The human rights committee: Its role in the development of the international covenant on civil and political rights
29. Méndez, J. E.(2002).Human rights policy in the age of terrorism.Saint Louis University Law Journal,377-404.
30. Mundis, D. A.(2002).The use of military commissions to prosecute individuals accused of terrorist acts.American Journal of International Law,96(2),320-358.
31. Status of Detainees at Guantánamo
32. Ovey, C.,White, R.(2002).European Convention on Human Rights (3rd ed.)
33. Paust, J. J.(2002).Antiterrorism military commissions: The Ad Hoc DOD rules of procedure.Michigan Journal of International Law,23(3),677-694.
34. Sorel, J-M.(2003).Some questions about the definition of terrorism and the fight against its financing.European journal of International Law,14(2),365-378.
35. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights(2002).Decision on the request for precautionary measures (Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba).International Legal Materials,41,532-535.
36. Statement in reaction to the events of September 11, 2001
37. Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (chap. 24)
38. Explanatory notes to Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (chap. 24)
39. Tomkins, A.(2002).Analysis legislating against terror: The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.Public Law, Summer: 205-220
40. UN High Commissioner for Refugees(1992).Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees
41. Vagts, D. F.(2003).Which courts should try persons accused of terrorism?.European Journal of International Law,14(2),313-326.
42. Van Dijk, P.,van Hoof, G. J. H.(1998).Theory and practice of the European convention on human rights (3rd ed.)
43. Von Schorlemer, S.(2003).Human rights: Substantive and institutional implications of the war against terrorism.European Journal of International Law,14(2),265-282.
44. Young, K. A.(2002).The law and process of the U. N. human rights committee

1. 廖福特(2009)。即使戰爭，也要人權－Hamdi及Hamdan判決評論。歐美研究，39(4)，671-711。
2. 林鈺雄(2006)。論不自證己罪原則—歐洲法整合趨勢及我國法發展之評析—。臺大法學論叢，35(2)，1-60。
3. 林鈺雄(2006)。證人概念與對質詰問權—以歐洲人權法院相關裁判為中心。歐美研究，36(1)，121-173。
4. (2006)。反恐與人權—以美英兩國的立法措施為中心。臺灣國際法季刊，3(2)，35-92。
5. (2006)。是共存，非衝突－歐洲理事會如何平衡恐怖文義人權保障。月旦法學雜誌，132，39-57。
6. (2008)。原住民保留地土地地上權之取得要件。台灣法學雜誌，114，89-104。