即使戰爭，也要人權－Hamdi及Hamdan判決評論

Even in Wartime, Rights Are Needful-Comments on Hamdi and Hamdan

廖福特(Fort Fu-Te Liao)

人身保護令 ； 正當程序 ； 軍事委員會 ； 日內瓦公約 ； 反恐戰爭 ； writ of habeas corpus ； Due Process Clause ； Military Commission ； Geneva Convention ； war on terror

歐美研究

39卷4期（2009 / 12 / 01）

671 - 711

繁體中文

本文分析Hamdi及Hamdan判決，以探討武裝衝突下之權利保障，本文認為兩個判決結論都值得贊同，但是對於論證內容，本文有不同看法。在Hamdi案，本文認為可以直接認定國會沒有授權行政拘禁，亦未暫停人身保護令，因此當事人人身自由應受到保護。在Hamdan案，本文認為應認定美國攻打阿富汗為國際武裝衝突，因而依據「日內瓦公約」，當事人不應由軍事委員會審判，同時審判過程亦應符合公平審判權之內容。本文認為由於最高法院幾位法官之堅持及部分法官對於「日內瓦公約」之重視，才能堅持權利保障。

This essay, through an analysis of two judgments, Hamdi and Hamdan, explores rights under conditions of armed conflicts. It agrees with the conclusions of these two judgments, but offers different arguments. This essay argues that in Hamdi it is better for the Supreme Court to say, since the Congress neither authorized administrative detention nor suspended the writ of habeas corpus, personal liberty should be guaranteed. It also argues that in Hamdan, the war between the US and Afghanistan should be regarded as an international armed conflict. Hamdan, according to the Third Geneva Convention, should be therefore treated as a prisoner of war and tried by a military or civil court. This essay considers that due to the insistence of several judges, and reference to the Geneva Convention, rights were protected.

1. Liao, F. T.(2004).Rights to liberty and fair trial: Sacrificed in the name of anti-terrorism.EurAmerica,34(3),511-553.
   連結：
2. Boeving, J. N.(2007).The right to present before military commissions and federal courts: Protecting national security in an age of classified information.Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy,30,463-577.
3. Bornstein, H. R.(2007).The Alien Tort Claims Act in 2007: Resolving the delicate balance between judicial and legislative authority.Indiana Law Journal,82,1077-1100.
4. Calabresi, S. G.,Lawson, G.(2007).The unitary executive, jurisdiction stripping, and the hamdan opinions: A textualist response to Justice Scalia.Columbia Law Review,107,1002-1047.
5. Corn, G. S.(2007).Questioning the jurisdictional moorings of the Military Commission Act.Texas International Law Journal,43,29-39.
6. Devins, N.(2007).Congress, the Supreme Court, and enemy combatants: How lawmakers buoyed judicial supremacy by placing limits on federal court jurisdiction.Minnesota Law Review,91,1562-1595.
7. Falk, B. J.(2007).The global war on terror and the detention debate: the applicability of Geneva Convention III.Journal of International Law and International Relations,3,31-60.
8. Fallon, R. H.,Meltzer D. J.(2007).Habeas corpus jurisdiction, substantive rights, and the war on terror.Harvard Law Review,120,2029-2112.
9. Greenberger, M.(2007).You ain't seen nothing yet: The inevitable post-Hamdan conflict between the Supreme Court and the political branches.Maryland Law Review,66,805-834.
10. Happold, M.(2007).Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the law of war.Human Rights Law Review,7(2),418-431.
11. Johnson, T. R.(2007).Combatant status review tribunals: An ordeal through the eyes of one "enemy combatant".Lewis & Clark Law Review,11,943-962.
12. Kalshoven, F.(2007).Reflections on the law of war collected essays.Leiden, the Netherlands:Martinus Nijhoff.
13. Katyal, N.(2007).Equality in the war on terror.Stanford Law Review,59,1365-1394.
14. Kmiee, D. W.(2007).The separation of powers: Hamdan v. Rums-feld-the anti-Roberts.Pepperdine Law Review,34,573-597.
15. Knoops, G.-J. A.(2007).The proliferation of the law of international criminal tribunals within terrorism and "unlawful" combatancy trials after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.Fordham International Law Journal,30,599-641.
16. Liao, F. T.(2006).Co-existence, not conflict-How the Council of Europe Offers balance between combating terrorism and protection of rights.The Taiwan Law Review,132,39-57.
17. Liao, F. T.(2002).Bringing international human rights home-Comparative analyses and Taiwans.Tunghai University Law Review,17,153-224.
18. Martin, F. F.,Schnably, S. J.,Simon, J. S.,Tushnet, M. V.,Wilson, R. J.(2006).International human rights & humanitarian law treaties, cases, & analysis.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
19. Mayerfeld, J.(2007).Playing by our own rules: How U.S. marginalization of international human rights law led to torture.Harvard Human Rights Journal,20,89-140.
20. Murphy, S. D.(2006).United States practice in international law volume 2: 2002-2004.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
21. Note(2007).Laser beam or blunderbuss?: Evaluating the usefulness of determinate sentencing for military commissions and international criminal law.Harvard Law Review,120,1848-1869.
22. Office of the Press Secretary(2006).President Bush Signs Military Commissions Act of 2006.Washington, DC:The White House.
23. Paust, J. J.(2007).Beyond the law the Bush administration's unlawful responses in the "war" on terror.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
24. Sloss, D.(2007).Judicial deference to executive branch treaty interpretations: A historical perspective.New York University Annual Survey of American Law,62,497-523.
25. Stone, G. R.(2007).War and liberty an American dilemma: 1790 to the present.New York:W. W. Norton.
26. Toobin, J.(2005).Swing shift how Anthony Kennedy's passion for foreign law could change the Supreme Court.The New Yorker,9
27. Trahan, J.(2007).Military commission trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Do they satisfy international and constitutional law?.Fordham International Law Journal,30,780-835.
28. Tushnet, M.(2007).The political constitution of emergency powers: Some lessons from Hamdan.Minnesota Law Review,91,1451-1472.
29. Vladeck, S. I.(2007).Enemy aliens, enemy property, and access to the courts.Lewis & Clark Law Review,11,963-996.
30. Weiner, A. S.(2007).Hamdan, terror, war.Lewis & Clark Law Review,11,997-1021.
31. Young, G. G.(2007).Youngstown, Hamdan, and "inherent" emergency presidential policymaking powers.Maryland Law Review,66,787-804.
32. 廖福特(2002)。引進國際人權準則：比較分析與台灣借鏡。東海大學法學研究，17，153-224。
33. 廖福特(2006)。是共存，非衝突－歐洲理事會如何平衡打擊恐怖主義與人權保障。月旦法學，132，39-57。

1. 林超駿(2012)。論合憲訴訟救濟制度之建構─從釋字第665號解釋出發。臺北大學法學論叢，82，1-93。