頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 淺論德國基本權釋義學的變動--以德國聯邦憲法法院Glykol與Osho兩則判決為中心=A Brief Discussion on the Change of the Doctrinal System of Fundamental Rights in German--Centered on the Glykol-Case and Osho-Case of the Federal Contitutional Court |
---|---|
作 者 | 王韻茹; | 書刊名 | 成大法學 |
卷 期 | 17 2009.06[民98.06] |
頁 次 | 頁85-126 |
分類號 | 581.4315 |
關鍵詞 | 基本權釋義學; 基本權侵害; 保護範圍; 保障領域; 憲法正當化; Dogmatics of fundamental rights; Intrusion of fundamental rights; Scope of protection; Sphere of guarantee; Constitutional justification; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 二次世界大戰後,歷經納粹獨裁體制的德國,在英、美與法國佔領之區域於1949年制定了基本法。由於之前納粹時期對人民權利之戕害歷史,基本法中的基本權利章節,採取與先前德國威瑪憲法不同之規範方式,放棄範圍廣泛的保障,而回歸先前「古典」基本權利清單,加上基本權之根本價值—人性尊嚴以及基本權為直接有效之法的規定,更為基本權的理論開展帶來新的發展契機。即使如此,基本法的基本權保障規定仍保有憲法規範之特色—簡潔且須加以具體化之開放性。而此項簡潔之基本權利清單透過聯邦憲法法院逐年累積之判決與德國憲法學者之學術討論,逐年與逐步發展出德國獨特的基本權釋義學,其中基本權客觀面向之開展,更在六零年代以後引起熱烈討論。最重要的基本權實證化仍是展現於傳統上作為個人主觀防禦權功能,亦即,基本權對抗國家公權力侵害之正當化論證。以自由權審查架構而言,聯邦憲法法院建構之「三階的自由權審查模式—保護範圍—侵害—憲法正當化」,影響以及支配整個德國憲法學界對於基本權釋義學之討論。 |
英文摘要 | After World War II, the dogmatics of fundamental rights expands in Germany, as the Federal Constitutional Court functions and the jurisprudence contributes. The “three-step-test” of liberty claims has been developed. The Federal Constitutional Court affirmed the competence of the Federal Government to warn the public in two recent decisions where the Court’s reasoning has deviated from the former test and followed the different dogmatic approaches. This study analyses these two important decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, which have been harshly criticized by jurisprudence. It further discusses controversial issues such as jurisprudential debate on the change of Paradigm, and justification of government information activities on the ground of the public task of Governance of the State (Staatsaufgabe), which is undefined in the constitution, instead of the principle of Legal Basis. At the end of the study, it turns out that the dogmatics of fundamental rights serves the rationalization of the adaptability of law and the realization of fundamental rights in case law. Even with government’s unstable activities, the dogmatics of fundamental rights could change, but it should not deviate from the aim of rationalization. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。