時間：2022 年 12 月 02 日

地點：立法院紅樓 201 會議室

發言：黃羣怡 | 人權公約施行監督聯盟 研究倡議專員

下週六12月10日是世界人權日，也是台灣 〈企業與人權國家行動計劃〉 屆滿兩週年的日子。這份行動計畫是參照 《聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則》，簡稱UNGPs , 所制定的。而 UNGPs 強調，政府在國際人權公約下的保護義務除了要求其事前須採取適當措施防免企業侵害人權外，事後在侵害發生時更必須提供有效救濟。

而這項義務的範圍並不止於領土疆界。這點在 《經社文公約》 第24號一般性意見及《兒童權利公約》 第都清楚講明。也就是說當侵害發生地的地主國政府無法提供有效救濟時，企業母國政府必須確保受害者可以透過獨立且公正的司法途徑迅速且有效的 (expeditious) 取得救濟。而在跨國訴訟案件中常碰的各項困難，無論是程序或實體面，母國政府更必須採取一切必要措施來協助排除。

這些，台灣政府不是不知情。在這份行動計畫第16頁承諾「強化域外管轄」，「提供被害人有效救濟管道」。但，本案中7000多名越南原告，從2016年因台塑越鋼廢水污染家園被毀、生計受重創，到 2019 年跨海到號稱以人權立國的台灣提告，至今仍無法取得有效救濟。原因不是因為官司打輸了，而是要一個開啟實質審查的機會都沒有。好不容易過了管轄權這一關，卻被要求取得訴訟代理人委任狀認證。而辦理程序上，必須先經過越南官方。這形同強迫他們公開身份、將自己和家人的生命置於險境。

為此求助我國外交部，不僅未能主動提供協助，甚至要他們提出具體事證，似乎要有人以身試險、真的被抓才能證明認證手續風險的存在。這不僅是缺乏同理心的展現，更與行動計畫中做出的承諾大相徑庭、也與我國政府在國際人權公約下的救濟義務相違。這樣的行徑已經引起國際關注。在今年五月兩公約國際審查，委員會在結論性意見第 24, 25 點已直接寫明政府必須確保本案受害者得到有效賠償。各位方才也已經看到美國聯邦眾議員對本案的關切。也就是說，政府下一步怎麼應對，國際上大家都在看。台灣人權大步走到底是在往前走，還是倒退走，我們要請外交部謹慎三思。

(English version)

Ladies and gentlemen from the media, Legislator Fan, Legislator Chiu, my friends and colleagues here with us and online, thank you for joining us today. I am Huang Cyun Yi from the Covenants Watch, speaking today on behalf of the Formosa Plastics Case Supervision Alliance.

Next Saturday, December 10, is Human Rights Day, which also marks the 2^nd  anniversary of Taiwan’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. The Action Plan was modeled after the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, that is, the UNGPs. The UNGPs emphasizes that, under international human rights conventions, states are not only obligated to take all appropriate measures to protect against human rights abuses but must also provide effective remedies to those whose rights have been violated.

Importantly, this obligation does not stop at the territorial borders. This extraterritorial aspect of state obligation to protect has been underscored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in General Comment No. 24 and also by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in its General Comment No. 16 . This means, when corporations violate human rights abroad, home states must ensure aggrieved individuals have access to effective and expeditious remedies, including through independent and impartial judicial mechanisms, especially where the host states are unable to do so. Further, states must take necessary steps to remove the various barriers, whether substantive, procedural, or practical, that abound in transnational cases.

The Taiwanese government is not ignorant of this. On page 16 of the NAP, the government  promises to “strengthen extraterritorial jurisdiction” and “provide victims with access to effective redress.” Nonetheless, over 7,000 Vietnamese residents in this case, having had their homeland and livelihoods destroyed in 2016 by the Formosa pollution, thereafter initiating overseas litigation in Taiwan, a, self-proclaimed island  “founded on human rights,” still have no access to effective remedies to this day. Why is that? Not because they lost their lawsuit, but because they are continually denied an opportunity to have their case heard substantively. Having surpassed the jurisdictional barrier, albeit not without great difficulties, they are faced with another great challenge – to have their counsel’s power of attorney verified, the process of which necessitates their showing up before the Vietnamese officials, thereby exposing their identities and placing the lives of the entire family at grave risks.

Straining to  climb this seemingly insurmountable mountain, they reached out to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Taiwan. When approached, however, MOFA not only fails to provide assistance actively, but asks them of  “substantive evidence”, as if someone needs to be arrested to prove the existence of risks involved. MOFA’s reaction cannot be reconciled with the commitments made in the Action Plan and is inconsistent with the Taiwanese government’s obligation to provide access to remedy under international human rights conventions. The case has already attracted international attention. In the Concluding Observations of the Review Meeting of Taiwan’s 3^rd Report under ICCPR and ICESCR this May, the Committee made clear, the Taiwanese government must seek ways to ensure Vietnamese victims receive adequate compensation. As you see just now, the US senates also expressed concerns. Human rights in Taiwan will proceed in which direction, forward or backward, hinges on MOFA’s next step. Apparently, the international community is watching. We urge MOFA to think again, carefully and thoroughly. Thank you.

主辦單位 ▮ 監督台塑越鋼聯盟
聯盟組織 ▮ 環境權保障基金會、環境法律人協會、天主教新竹教區越南移工移民辦公室、台塑受害者正義會、台灣人權促進會、人權公約施行監督聯盟

發言名單 ▮
Nancy Bui 裴南茜｜美國台塑受害者正義會 Justice for Formosa Victims 副會長
Chu Manh Son｜越南前記者、政治迫害受害者（即時連線）
Phil Robertson 菲爾·羅伯遜｜人權觀察 Human Rights Watch 亞洲副主任（影片）
Paul Nguyen Thai Hop 阮泰合｜天主教河靜教區前主教
阮文雄｜台灣省天主教會新竹教區附設越南外勞配偶辦公室主任
黃羣怡｜人權公約施行監督聯盟 研究倡議專員
邱顯智｜時代力量立法委員
范雲｜民主進步黨立法委員