The Protection of Firefighters' Right of Withdrawal─take Mingyang International Incorporation Fire Event for Example

[[abstract]]本文探討消防員於高風險救災現場，救援義務與生命安全衝突下之退避權規範建構。繼而以明揚國際火災事件為切入點，說明消防員之生命三權（資訊權、退避權、調查權），並透過比較法視角檢視我國法制之不足。 首先定位退避權之意義、性質與要件，區別其與正當防衛、緊急避難、自助行為之異同，並論述雇主保護照顧義務之給付義務屬性，區別職業安全衛生法之退避權與消防法之退避權。其次說明消防員公務員身分導致職安法不適用之衝突。第三，借鏡ILO第155號公約、歐盟89/391/EEC指令、德國ArbSchG、加拿大OHSA、美國OSHA及韓、日本職業安全衛生法，歸納各國退避權法規範之異同。 最後評析因應明揚事件之消防法修法，包括增訂安全衛生專章、擴大吹哨者範圍及強化資訊權，惟認定標準模糊、保護碎片化。本文建議制定消防員之職業安全衛生法，明定危險性救災判準及第三方調查機制，實現從殉職英雄到安全職人之觀點轉型。 This thesis, “The Protection of Firefighters’ Right of Withdrawal: Taking the Mingyang International Fire as an Example”, examines how to construct a legal framework for firefighters’ right to withdraw in high‑risk rescue operations when their duty to save lives conflicts with their own safety. Using the Mingyang International fire as a focal case, it analyzes the practical difficulties in applying the three statutory rights newly introduced into the Fire Services Act—right to information, right of withdrawal, and right to investigation—and, through a comparative law perspective, evaluates deficiencies in Taiwan’s current legal regime. The thesis first defines the meaning, legal nature, and elements of the right of withdrawal, distinguishing it from self‑defence, necessity, and self‑help, and then discusses the categorization of the employer’s duty of protection and care within the cluster of contractual obligations, thereby confirming that the right of withdrawal is a preventive, liability‑exempting right. It then critiques the Mingyang fire in terms of information asymmetry and the mis‑timing of withdrawal, highlighting the dual‑track conflict created when firefighters, as civil servants, are excluded from direct application of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Next, drawing on ILO Convention No. 155, EU Directive 89/391/EEC, Germany’s ArbSchG, Ontario’s OHSA, U.S. OSHA rules, and Korean and Japanese firefighter legislation, it identifies international common principles such as the requirement of “serious and imminent danger”, the limitation of “inherent risk”, and protection against retaliation. Finally, the thesis assesses the post‑Mingyang amendments to the Fire Services Act, including the new chapter on occupational safety and health, the expansion of whistleblower protection, and the strengthening of firefighters’ right to information, while noting that vague standards and fragmented protections persist. It argues for the enactment of a dedicated “Firefighters’ Occupational Safety and Health Act” to clarify criteria for hazardous rescue operations, impose reversed burden of proof on the employer, and establish independent investigation mechanisms, thereby promoting a cultural shift from viewing firefighters as “sacrificial heroes” to recognizing them as “safety‑oriented professionals”.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.