國際勞工組織（ILO）公約對台灣有何規範意義？學者有將全部ILO公約視為值得參考但沒有拘束力的國際潮流、有主張其全屬習慣國際法，亦有認為經批准者應屬條約法。本文主張至少就ILO 核心公約，由人權法之整全詮方法視之，已透過聯合國人權公約條約機構的援引，構成人權公約體系的一環，並因台灣決定以施行法內國法化人權公約，而間接地成為台灣理解其在人權公約體系下之國家義務確切內容的必要指引。此一主張的實務重要性是，無論國家機關有無為ILO 公約核心公約訂定施行法的政治意願，都無妨於其已負擔因人權公約而受ILO 核心公約拘束而生之人權義務，並應以現有對政府的人權課責機制，檢視其實踐與不足。

 

Is Taiwan legally bound by the core conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO), despite being officially excluded from joining membership in the ILO and the United Nations (UN)? The literature presents three perspectives on this question: some view all ILO conventions as valuable references without binding force; others argue that these conventions constitute customary international law and are therefore binding on Taiwan; while still others believe that those ratified by the ROC government before it lost membership in the UN remain valid treaty law for Taiwan. This paper challenges these views. It advocates for a holistic interpretive approach to human rights law, under which the ILO core conventions bind Taiwan to the extent that they have been cited and referred to by UN human rights treaty bodies, thereby constituting part of the universal human rights regime. The practical implication of this argument is that Taiwan has already been bound to the ILO core conventions due to its commitments to the UN human rights treaties, even if the government lacks political will to enact ILO core conventions in the domestic legal system. 

 

Keywords

International Labour Organization (ILO), ILO fundamental conventions, fragmentation, domesticalization, customary international law