本文透過分析一則歐洲人權法院的晚近案例，即M.N. and Others v Belgium案，探討《歐洲人權公約》的管轄問題。在本案中，原告自稱為敘利亞難民，向比利時駐黎巴嫩首都貝魯特的大使館，請求基於人道理由核發簽證，並計畫嗣後移居比利時。在該大使館駁回原告所請之際，是否會觸發《歐洲人權公約》的適用？另一個棘手問題，則是原告等人得否主張《歐洲人權公約》第3條關於禁止不當對待的保障？於此均有重大爭議。法院於本案中認為《歐洲人權公約》所謂的「管轄」，主要是以締約國領土範圍為限，在其案例法發展中所建立可能導致管轄擴張的特殊情況，於本件均無適用餘地。最後，在通常情況下，僅有在原告已經實際身處於締約國境內時，《歐洲人權公約》第3 條始有適用的餘地；因此本案中的數名難民，並無從主張本條之保護。本文主張，從理由構成而言，本件不受理決定明顯存在以下幾個疑點：首先，法院於本案中論理過程較為疏略，而未如過往案例一般檢視管轄擴張的事實背景；其次，法院將其對管轄擴張的討論，立基於「公權力」的概念之上，卻未進一步釐清其適用場合，使得論述產生邏輯的跳躍；再者，此論理與法院既有的其他裁判先例見解不一，而可能在難民的保護上創造差別待遇。對這些問題，法院未來即須發展出更為精緻的說理方法，始能圓融處理這個解釋論的困境。

This article explores the scope of application of the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) by analysing a recent case of the European Court of Human Rights, M.N. and Others v Belgium. The applicants in this case, several self-claimed Syrian refugees, went to the Belgian Embassy to Lebanon to apply for Belgian visas on humanitarian grounds. When the Embassy rejected the applicant’s request, whether the ECHR’s safeguards for refugees may be applicable aroused great controversies between both parties. Furthermore, another problematic issue was if the applicants may invoke Article 3 of the ECHR, safeguards of the freedom from ill-treatment, to support their legal claims. In this case, the Court held that the term“jurisdiction”referred primarily to the“territorial application”of the ECHR. Additionally, none of the special circumstances in the Court’s jurisprudence that such scope might be extended were applicable in the case in question. Lastly, Article 3 of the ECHR was, under general situations, only applicable when the applicant was physically in the territory of the contracting states. The asylum seekers in question, therefore, were unable to enjoy the protection of this stipulation. This article contends that the Court’s decision may be potentially flawed for the following reasons. Firstly, its legal reasoning appears overly simplistic and did not carefully examine the factual backgrounds that might expand the scope of application as it did in the previous cases. Secondly, the Court fails to shed light on the applicable situations of the“public powers”concept and its relevance to an expansion of jurisdiction, leading to a leap of logic. In addition, an inconsistency in the Court’s opinions can be identified among the stare decisis and the case in question, which possibly creates unequal protection for refugees facing similar situations. In order to adequately resolve these issues, a more refined and coordinated approach to legal reasoning is urgently needed.