中華民國台灣政府在長期隔絕於聯合國體系外之情況下，2009 年終於批 准了兩個主要聯合國人權公約―《公民與政治權利國際公約》與《經濟社會文化權利國際公約》，並通過《公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利 國際公約施行法》，明文規定兩公約人權保障之規定具有國內法之效力。

 

由於台灣無法參加聯合國人權條約機構之審查，批准後，政府與民間合力 建立了一套獨步全球的人權報告審查制度。與聯合國人權公約審查不同，台灣的人權審查在台北舉行，決策與執行過程均由台灣政府與在地公民社會共同參與。

 

本文主張，此種獨特的「在地化」審查模式―或可稱為「國際人權公約 審查 2.0」，大幅強化了政府代表與民間團體對國際人權體系的參與，凸顯在地行動者之主導權；相較之下，聯合國人權公約審查之「在地參與」仍有待加 強。台灣模式呈現一種新思維：國際人權計畫為「地方」與「全球」共有共享之資產，國際社會必須正視地方之主體性。另一方面，台灣「在地審查」模式 仍存在許多因無法參與聯合國人權體系所產生之制度缺失，值得檢討與改進。

 

Despite its exclusion from the United Nations since 1971, the Republic of China on Taiwan (Taiwan) ratified the two major U.N. human rights covenants in 2009–the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It has further enacted an Implementation Law that grants domestic legal status to the covenants’ human rights protections. Excluded from the United Nations, Taiwan is prevented from submitting its human rights reports to relevant human rights treaty bodies for review. In response, the Taiwan government and domestic civil society worked together to establish a novel human rights treaty review system with many unprecedented modifications. Unlike U.N. human rights treaty monitoring which is held in Geneva and New York, Taiwan’s review is held in the capital, Taipei, which facilitates extensive local engagement. Moreover, review decision-making and implementation procedures have all been created and carried out by local stakeholders, including the government and non-governmental organizations.

 

This article argues that this innovative, “localized” review model–referred to as “Human Rights Treaty Monitoring 2.0” in the article–significantly enhances the participation of local actors in the international human rights system, embodying the spirit of local autonomy and ownership. In contrast, the U.N. human rights review has yet to effectively address its shortfalls in local engagement. The Taiwan model offers fresh thinking: the universal human rights project should be owned by local as well as global actors, and international society must take local ownership seriously.

 

The article also identifies the weaknesses of Taiwan’s review that have largely been caused by its inability to participate in the U.N. human rights system. They are a constant reminder that Taiwan’s exclusion from that system has practical consequences for how Taiwan sustains its domestic human rights institutions. Taiwan, however, has turned its misfortune into an opportunity to innovate a new model for human rights treaty protection. Its indigenous experience is a welcome shot in the arm for the international human rights system and deserves global attention and consideration.