國際人權公約實踐之關鍵實繫於國家是否透過立法措施「賦予公約國內法律效力」，本文以兒童權利公約（下稱「兒權公約」）為例，嘗試由比較法（德國、法國、英國及澳洲）之視野呈現公約國內法化後，公約與國內法律互動關係可能進一步衍生之議題，並說明兒權公約施行法雖已為國內建置了該公約國內法化之基礎架構，但對於國內法化後如何使公約規範匯入國內法律體系並加以適用，施行法並未多所著墨，如若能進一步就後續公約規範之直接效力、法律位階及符合公約意旨之解釋模式等關鍵課題予以明確化，相信將更能發揮公約國內法化之權利保障功能。 回溯兒權公約施行法之制定背景及協商過程，本文認為立法者於法案起草之初係以一元論為立法基礎，欲藉由施行法之制定使公約具國內法效力以克服我國特有之公約存放困境，故法院於適用經施行法轉換為國內法律之兒權公約時，參酌同採一元論之法國及德國司法實務，至少該公約之「原則性條文」於國內應具「自動履行」之效力，而得於個案中直接予以適用。英國及澳洲之二元論國家雖未將兒權公約國內法化，然其法院卻得於司法審判中將兒權公約納入可資運用之解釋輔助工具中，透過法律解釋直接將公約標準導入國內法律體系，則可供國內法院於解釋及適用公約時作為借鏡。

Incorporation of the international human rights conventions into domestic law is critical to implementing such conventions by states parties. By using the example of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the “CRC”), this article analyzes the core issues associated with incorporation of international law into domestic legal systems. Reflecting on the experiences of four countries (Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Australia), the article explains how the “Implementation Act of the Convention on the Rights of the Child” (the “Act”) lacks clarity in underlying issues, including the direct effect of CRC provisions, the hierarchy of CRC in the Taiwanese legal system and whether or not an obligation is imposed on the domestic courts to interpret domestic law(s) in conformity with the CRC. Based on an examination of parliamentary debates and the lawmaking process of the Act, the article concludes that it was drafted on the basis of a monist approach to the application of international conventions. The Act’s main purpose, therefore, was to overcome the obstacle that Taiwan is unable to ratify the CRC and become a party thereto. On this basis, the article takes the view that Taiwan courts should, first and foremost, determine whether or not the rights set out in the CRC are of a self-executing nature. In France and Germany, for example, those provisions categorized as general principles of the CRC are directly applicable. With regard to interpretation of those provisions that are not directly applicable, however, how courts in the United Kingdom and Australia interpret those provisions in order that they may conform to the CRC can provide guidance to Taiwan courts.