题名

性別與暴力：美洲人權法院對中美洲「殺女」論述之回應

并列篇名

Gender and Violence: Response of the Inter - American Court of Human Rights to the Feminicide Discourse in Central America

作者

翁燕菁(Vivianne Yen-Ching Weng)

关键词

對婦女施加之暴力 ； 性別歧視 ； 美洲人權法院 ； 貝倫公約 ； 拉丁美洲憲政主義 ； Violence against Women ； Gender Discrimination ； Inter-American Court of Human Rights ； Belém do Pará Convention ； Latin American Constitutionalism

期刊名称

台灣國際法學刊

卷期/出版年月

16卷2期（2020 / 07 / 01）

页次

85 - 118

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

「殺女」概念於中美洲發展為對抗不對等性別權力關係之重要論述，進而挑戰法律規範之不足。殺女非僅強調被害人性別，更指控社會與法律體制對女性生命尊嚴之結構性暴力或系統性歧視，構成其與國際人權法之連結。殺女揭露體制之加害：私人對女性之殘害不受懲罰，無異於國家及其代理人與加害人共同構成殺女網絡。惟自整體既有之國際人權法規範觀察，對婦女施加之暴力已得涵蓋殺女，無論自基於性別之加害動機或自相應之國家義務範疇而論。況殺女論述亦得以禁止歧視搭配生命權及禁止侮辱待遇條款課責相關義務。向以拉丁美洲新憲政主義著稱之美洲人權法院，於2009年訴墨西哥及2014年訴瓜地馬拉兩項判決中確認，國家面對基於性別之謀殺須滿足盡其所能義務。公權力機關忽視性別權力關係甚至將罪行歸咎被害人等行為，徒然釋放殺女不受懲罰之錯誤訊息。美洲人權法院首度超越美洲人權公約而直接適用1994年貝倫公約（Belém do Pará Convention），惟未如婦運之期待般肯定殺女概念並納入美洲人權規範加以發展。本文主張，美洲人權法院雖慣於直接指導各國應有作為，惟亦著重毫無爭議之法規範適用，使性別歧視面向依舊與既有人權規範相融，以維持其整合式合公約性審查方針。
英文摘要

The concept of ＂feminicide＂ has been developed into a key discourse to confront the unbalanced gender relations and then the unsatisfying legal norms in Central America. Feminicide does not only underline the victims' gender but also accuses social and legal systems of structural discrimination or systematic violence against women's life and dignity, which constitutes its connection with the international human rights law. It exposes how the system's failure in protection has made the private abuse of women unpunished, in which the state and its agents become part of the feminicide complicity network. However, when observed from the existing norms under international human rights law, feminicide can be covered by the notion of violence against women, whether concerning the killing motive or the extent to which state obligations to protect are met. Moreover, the same state accountability can also be established under the right to life and the prohibition of degrading treatments in the light of nondiscrimination. Known for its Latin American constitutionalism, the Inter- American Court of Human Rights confirmed in its judgments on Mexico (2009) and Guatemala (2014) that states have to fulfill due diligence obligations regarding ＂gender-based murders＂. Public authorities, by neglecting the gender power relationship and even imputing the tragedies to the victims for their behaviors, send a wrong message to ensure the impunity of feminicide crimes. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for the first time, went beyond the American Convention on Human Rights and apply directly the 1994 Belém do Pará Convention, without nevertheless recognized and develop the elimination of feminicide as part of the Inter-American human rights legal framework. I argue that, although the Court does not refrain itself from intervening directly in the way that national authorities implement the norms, it still relies on an undisputed application of conventionality. Its two judgments on feminicide crime aim at maintaining gender discrimination as an fundamental part of the existing legal system, so as to reinforce its integration approach on conventionality control.
主题分类 社會科學 > 法律學
参考文献
  1. 李怡俐(2016)。拉丁美洲在轉型正義上的困境與出路：以美洲人權法院的回應為中心。台大法學論叢，45(3)，827-909。
    連結：
  2. 翁燕菁(2015)。歐洲人權公約第 3 條與嚴重系統性歧視：私人關係中的非人道或侮辱待遇。歐美研究，45(4)，730-731。
    連結：
  3. 翁燕菁(2017)。對話與爭議：從歐洲人權法圖像論臺灣施行人權公約之實質意涵。台大法學論叢，46(特刊)，1155-1162。
    連結：
  4. 劉淑範(2003)。論確認訴訟之備位功能: 行政訴訟法第六條第三項之意涵與本質。人文及社會科學集刊，15(1)，61。
    連結：
  5. 蔡志偉(2011)。原住民族財產權之發展─以美洲人權法院Awas Tingni 案為初始的思考。台灣民主季刊，8(4)，45-81。
    連結：
  6. 美洲人權公約第62 條第1 項。
  7. Barrios Altos v. Peru, Reparations & Costs, Inter-Am. Court HR (ser. C), no. 87, para. 7 (Nov. 30, 2001).
  8. The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T (Sept. 2, 1998).
  9. Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C), no. 216 (Aug. 31, 2010).
  10. (2007).S.Res.178 - A resolution expressing the sympathy of the Senate to the families of women and girls murdered in Guatemala, and encouraging the United States to work with Guatemala to bring an end to these crimes.110th Congress (2007-2008)..
  11. Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, ECHR 2002-IV, 13/06/2002, Bonello (partly dissenting).
  12. Ley General de Acceso de Las Mujeres a una Vida Libre de Violencia (General Law on Women's Access to a Life Free of Violence), 01/02/2007.
  13. The Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Case No. ICTY-96-23-T & 96-23/1-T (Feb. 22, 2001).
  14. Fernández Ortega v. Mexico, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) no. 215 (Aug. 30, 2010).
  15. Ley No. 8589 de Penalización de la Violencia Contra las Mujeres (Act on Criminalization of Violence against Women), 25/04/2007. http://www.ciem.ucr.ac.cr/IMG/pdf/ley_8589_penalizacion_de_la_vcm-2.pdf
  16. Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C), no. 75, para. 51(4) (Mar. 14, 2001).
  17. (2006).Report on the Thirty-Fourth and Thirty-Fifth Sessions, para300, 596, A/61/38 (2006)..
  18. The Prosecutor v. Krstić, Case No. ICTY)98-33-T (Aug. 02, 2001).
  19. Maria da Penha v. Brazil, Case 12.051, Inter-Am. Comm'n H.R., Report No. 54/01, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.111 Doc. 20 rev. at 704 (2000).
  20. (2007).H.Res.100 - Expressing the sympathy of the House of Representatives to the families of women and girls murdered in Guatemala and encouraging the Government of Guatemala to bring an end to these crimes.110th Congress (2007-2008)..
  21. Ley No. 22-2008 contra el Femicidio y otras Formas de Violencia contra la Mujer (Act against Femicide and Other Forms of Violence against Women), 10/04/2008. https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/Ley_contra_el_Femicidio_y_otras_Formas_de_Violencia_Contra_la_Mujer_Guatemala.pdf
  22. Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) no. 160 (Nov. 25, 2006).
  23. Velásquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) no. 4, para. 172 (July 29, 1988).
  24. Arnardóttir, Oddný Mjöll(2017).The 'procedural turn' under the European Convention on Human Rights and presumptions of Convention compliance.Int'l J. Const. L.,15,9-27.
  25. Beltrán, Adriana,Freeman, Laurie(2007).Hidden in Plain Sight: Violence against Women in Mexico and Guatemala.
  26. Bodiou, Lydie,Chauvaud, Frédéric(2020).Le féminicide, est-ce si nouveau?.Travail, genre et sociétés,43,149-153.
  27. Lydie Bodiou & Frédéric Chauvaud, « Le passé regorge de meurtres de femmes », Le Monde, 06/07/2019.
  28. Bourke-Martignoni, Joanna(2008).The History and Development of the Due Diligence Standard in International Law and Its Role in the Protection of Women against Violence.Due Diligence and Its Application to Protect Women from Violence
  29. Brands, Hal(2010).Crime, Violence, and the Crisis in Guatemala: A Case Study in the Erosion of the State.
  30. Carey, David, Jr.,Torres, M. Gabriela(2010).Precursors to Femicide: Guatemalan Women in a Vortex of Violence.Lat. Am. Res. Rev.,45,142-144.
  31. CAT(2009).CAT, Report on the Forty-First and Forty-Second Sessions, para. 48, A/64/44 (2009)..
  32. CEDAW(2006).CEDAW, Concluding comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Mexico, para. 15, CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/6 (2006)..
  33. CEDAW(2004).CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 25 on article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, para. 10, CEDAW/C/GC/25 (2004)..
  34. CEDAW(2007).,未出版
  35. CEDAW(2005).,未出版
  36. CEDAW(2004).CEDAW, Report on the Thirtieth and Thirty-First Sesssions, para. 272, A/59/38, (2004).
  37. Center for Gender & Refugee Studies(2006).,未出版
  38. Cobos, Felipe Curcó(2018).The new Latin American constitutionalism: a critical review in the context of neoconstitutionalism.Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies,43,221-223.
  39. Cruz, David Andrés Murillo(2016).La dialéctica entre el bloque de constitucionalidad y el bloque de convencionalidad en el Sis- temaInteramericano de Derechos Humanos.Revista de Derecho Público,31,3-35.
  40. Dauphin, C.(dir.),Farge, A.(dir.)(1997).Dela violence et des femmes.Paris:Albin Michel.
  41. Devineau, Julie(2012).Autour du concept de fémicide/féminicide : Entretiens avec Marcela Lagarde et Montserrat Sagot.Problèmes d'Amérique latine,84(2),78-80.
  42. Dulitzky, Ariel E.(2015).An Inter-American Constitutional Court? The Invention of the Conventionality Control by the Inter-American Court of Human Rgiths.Tex. Int'l L.J.,50,45-49-50+52+56+59+79.
  43. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean=ECLAC(2015).Annual Report 2013-2014: Confronting Violence against Women in Latin America and the Caribbean.
  44. Ertürk, Yakin(2005).Yakin Ertürk, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences: Mission to Guatemala, E/CN.4/2005/72/Add.3 (2005). , at para. 68.
  45. Eur. Court HR, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02 (2009).
  46. Follow-up Mechanism to the Belém do Pará Convention=MESECVI(2018).Inter-American Model Law on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of the Gender-Related Killing of women and Girls (Femicide/Feminicide).
  47. Fournier, Pascale,McDougall, Pascal(2014).Le droit comparé et la violence faite aux femmes: Voyages au Coeur de la narration identitaire.Droit et société,87(2),449-453.
  48. Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Court HR (ser. C), no. 277 (May 19, 2014). paras. 74-80+84-90+118+204-206+454+474-492
  49. Freeman, M.(ed.),Chinkin, C.(ed.),Rudolf, B.(ed.)(2011).The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: A Commentary.
  50. Fregoso, R.-L.(ed.),Bejarano, Cynthia(ed.)(2010).Terrorizing Women: Feminicide in the Américas.
  51. García-Del Moral, Paulina(2019).The Making and Unmaking of Feminicidio/Femicidio Laws in Mexico and Nicaragua.Law & Soc'y Rev.,53,452.
  52. Gleyses, Chantal(1994).La femme coupable. Petite histoire de l'épouse adultère au XIXe siècle.Paris:Imaco.
  53. Góngora Mera, Manuel Eduardo(2011).Inter-American Judicial Constitutionalism: On the Constitutional Rank of Human Rights Treaties in Latin America through National and Inter-American Adjudication.
  54. Gonzálaez et al. ("Cotton Field") v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Court HR (Ser. C), no. 205 (Nov. 16, 2009)., at paras. 35-41+125-140+143+157+159-162+249-286+302+340+388+396+400-401+502+506+512+541-542
  55. Guatemala Human Rights Commission/USA(2009).,未出版
  56. Houel, Annik(2011).Crime dit passionnel et inégalités de sexe.La Pensée: Revue du rationalisme moderne,367,86-87.
  57. Huneeus, Alexandra(2016).Constitutional Lawyers and the Inter-American Court's Varied Authority.Law & Contemp. Probs,79,179-186.
  58. Instituto Nacíonal de las Mujeres(2007).Ley General de Acceso de las Mujeres a una Vida Libre de Violencía: ¡Conócela!.
  59. Inter-Am. Court HR, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, ser. A no. 18 (2003): para. 101+103
  60. Joseph, Janice(2017).Victims of Femicide in Latin America: Legal and Criminal Justice Responses.Temida,20,3-8.
  61. Kelly, Liz(2005).Mainstreaming Violence against Women into Human Rights Discourse and Practice.Int. Fem. J. Politics,7,471-484.
  62. Lando, Sandra(2015).La Perspective de Genre dans la Jurisprudence Interamericaine en Application de la Convention Belemdo Para.Revue québecoise de droit international,28,89.
  63. López, Juana I. Acosta(2012).The Cotton Field Case: Gender Perspective and Feminist Theories in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence.Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int.,21,17-32+35-36.
  64. Mac-Gregor, Eduardo Ferrer(2015).Conventionality Control the New Doctrine of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.Am. J. Int'l L. Unbound,109,93-99.
  65. MacKinnon, Catherine A.(2006).Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues.
  66. Manjoo, Rashida(2012).Rashida Manjoo, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences, paras. 20-28, A/ARC/20/16 (2012)..
  67. Mercader, Patricia,Houel, Annik,Sobota, Helga(2009).Le crime dit 'passionnel' : des hommes malades de l'appropriation des femmes.Empan,73(1),44-45.
  68. Osuna, Karla I. Quintana(2008).Recognition of Women's Rights before the Inter-AmericanCourt of Human Rights.Harv. Hum. Rts. J.,21,301-308.
  69. Pegram, Tom,TorellyNataly Herrera(2019).Bridging the Gap: National Human RightsInstitutions and the Inter-American HumanRights System.The Inter-American HumanRights System: Impact Beyond Compliance, Studies of the Americas
  70. Peters, Anne(2019).Corruption as a Violation of International Human Rights.Eur. J. Int. Law,29,1251-1275.
  71. Powell, Cassie(2017).'You Have No God': An Analysis of the Prosecution of Genocidal Rape in International Criminal Law.Rich. Pub. Int. L. Rev.,20,25.
  72. Prieto-Carrón, Marina,Thomson, Marilyn,Macdonald, Mandy(2007).No More Killings! Women Respond to Femicides in Central America.Gender & Dev.,15,25.
  73. Radford, Jill,Russel, Diana E. H.(1992).Femicide: The Politics of Women Killing.
  74. Rogers, Shayna(2016).Sexual Violence or Rape as a Constituent Act of Genocide: Lessons from the Ad Hoc Tribunals and a Prescription for the International Criminal Court.Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev.,48,265.
  75. Rose, Marion(1994).Femicide: The Politics of Women Killing.Altern. Law J.,19,247-248.
  76. Rubio-Marín, Ruth,Sandoval, Clara(2011).Engendering the Reparations Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Promise of the Cotton Field Judgment.Hum. Rights Q.,33,1062-1089.
  77. Russell, D.E.H(ed.),Harmes, R.A.(ed.)(2006).Feminicidio : una perspectivva global.
  78. Russell, Diana E. H.(1977).Report on the International Tribunal on Crimes against Women.Frontiers,2,1-6.
  79. Diana E. H. Russell, Defining Femicide: Introductory speech presented to the United Nations Symposium on Femicide, 11/26/2012 (2012). www.dianarussell.com/f/ Defining_ Femicide_United_Nations_Speech_by_Diana_E._H._Russell_Ph.D.pdf. (last visited Dec. 19, 2019).
  80. Saris, Anne,Widyono, Katherine(2009).Reparation Programmes: A Gendered Perspective.Reparations for Victims of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
  81. Stone, D.(ed.)(2008).The Historiography of Genocide.
  82. Thornberry, Patrick(2005).Confronting Racial Discrimination: A CERD Perspective.Hum. Rights Law Rev.,5,239-256.
  83. Tiroch, Katrin(2010).Violence against Women by Private Actors: The Inter-American Court's Judgment in the Case of Gonzalez et al. ('Cotton Field') v. Mexico.Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law,14,371-392.
  84. Toivanen, R.(ed.),Scheinin, M.(ed.)(2004).Rethinking Non-Discrimination and Minority Rights.
  85. Torelly, Marcelo(2019).From Compliance to Engagement: Assessing the Impact of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Constitutional Law in Latin America.The Inter-American Human Rights System
  86. UN Commission on human rights(2006).UN Commission on human rights, Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Guatemala, paras. 6-22, E/CN.4/2006/10/Add.1 (Feb. 1, 2006)..
  87. UN Commission on Human Rights(1978).,未出版
  88. UN Commission on Human Rights(1979).,未出版
  89. UN Human Rights Committee(2010).UN Human Rights Committee, Report on the Ninety-Seventh, Ninety-Eighth and Ninety-Ninth Sessions, A/65/40, paras. 70(8)-(9) (2010)..
  90. UN Human Rights Committee(2018).UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, paras. 7 & 21, CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018)..
  91. Uprimny, Rodrigo(2011).The Recent Transformation of Constitutional Law in Latin America: Trends and Challenges.Tex. L. Rev.,89,1587-1592.
  92. Valdez, Diana Washington(2006).Harvest of Women: Safari in Mexico.
  93. Valdez, Michel(1995).Libération féministe et salut chrétien: Mary Daly et Paul Tillich.Québec:Bellarmin.
  94. van Leeuwen, Fleur(2013).'Women's rights are human rights!': the practice of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.Women's Human Rights: CEDAW in International, Regional and National Law
  95. Beth Van Schaack, Engendering Genocide: The Akayesu Case Before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Santa Clara L. Digital Commons 7-1-2008, 18 (2008). https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/629/
  96. Vandenhole, Wouter(2005).Non-Discrimination and Equality in the View of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies.
  97. Velasco, Natalie Jo(2008).The Guatemalan Femicide: An Epidemic of Impunity.Law & Bus. Rev. Am.,14,397-400-401+405-411.
  98. Venice Commission(2014).Venice Commission, Draft Report on International Human Rights Treaties in Domestic Law and the Role of Courts, para. 35, CDL(2014)046 (Sept. 26 2014)..
  99. von Bogdandy, Armin(2017).Ius Constitutionale Commune en América Latina: Observations on Transformative Constitutionalism.Am. J. Int'l L. Unbound,109,109.
  100. von Bogdandy, Armin,Urueña, René.International Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America.AM. J. INT'L L.,114,403-423.
  101. WHO,PAHO(2012).WHO & PAHO, “Femicide＂, Understanding and Addressing Violence against Women - Information Sheets, 1, WHO/RHR/12.38 (2012)..
  102. Widyono, Monique(2008).Conceptualizing Femicide.Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability,Washington DC:
  103. Zuloaga, Patricia Palacios(2008).The Path to Gender Justice in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.Tex. J. Women & L.,17,227-228-229+232-240.
  104. 王曉丹（編）(2019).這是愛女,也是厭女.
  105. 徐揮彥(2019)。自兩項人權公約之民族自決權論原住民族諮商同意權之規範基礎與實踐。政大法學評論，158，229-294。
  106. 蘇永欽(2013)。蘇永欽大法官司法院釋字第708號解釋協同意見書（頁4，2013）。
  107. 蘇彥圖(2018)。司法審查作為憲政工程—結構最小主義的提議。中研院法學期刊，22，2。
print cancel