查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- The Birth and Rebirth of the Judicial Review in Taiwan--Its Establishment, Empowerment, and Evolvement
- 試論大法官繼受外國法之特色與挑戰:影響繼受結果「質」的幾個關鍵
- 我國立法委員對大法官釋憲之認知與態度-- 一種獨特憲政文化之剖析
- 論違憲審查之程序理性--從Dworkin獨白取向之裁判理論到Habermas之司法法律論辯理論
- 高深莫測,抑或亂中有序?--論現任大法官在基本權利案件中的「審查基準」
- 美國司法違憲審查原則之探討
- 大法官憲法解釋權之界限--由功能法的觀點出發
- 憲法解釋--憲政成長的指標:慶祝行憲五十周年法學研討會論文
- 國會之名稱或實質--釋字第76號解釋評析
- 稅法解釋函令之檢討--以釋字第287號解釋評析為中心
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | The Birth and Rebirth of the Judicial Review in Taiwan--Its Establishment, Empowerment, and Evolvement=臺灣司法違憲審查的誕生與再生--創設、賦權與發展 |
---|---|
作 者 | 林建志; | 書刊名 | National Taiwan University Law Review |
卷 期 | 7:1 2012.03[民101.03] |
頁 次 | 頁167-222 |
分類號 | 589.1 |
關鍵詞 | 臺灣憲法法院; 司法違憲審查; 憲法解釋; 保險理論; 權威留存; Taiwanese constitutional court; Judicial review; Constitutional interpretation; Insurance theory; Hegemonic preservation; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 為什麼臺灣人會認同司法違憲審查?在過去七十年間,什麼因素促成臺灣司法違憲審查的創建、賦權與發展?這是本文所要討論的主要問題。本文一開始簡要介紹幾個解釋司法違憲審查的理論模型,並試圖尋找最吻合臺灣司法違憲審查的理論。然而由於過去臺灣的政治劇變,沒有一個理論可以完整地解釋臺灣的司法違憲審查發展,不同的理論模型只能說明不同階段的臺灣司法違憲審查。在創建時期,憲法法院非常順從,但在轉型時期,如同保險模型所預測的,憲法法院逐漸取回應有的權力與權威。政治環境的不穩定以及缺少過去不容質疑的威權,人們渴望有一個公平且中立的裁決者,而憲法法院正好順勢而起。除了政治操作外,即便是在社會高度分裂的2000年之後,憲法法院也積極、並謹慎的擴張其權力。然而在新興民主國家的脈絡下,司法違憲審查的運作必須特別小心。在一方面來說,司法化的傾 向提供憲法法院絕佳的機會參與政治決策的過程,但在另一方面,這 也可能造成損及憲法法院威信的政治危機。 |
英文摘要 | ABSTRACT This paper first briefly introduces several major models that explain the emergence of judicial review in an attempt to find one that best elucidates the situation in Taiwan. Yet, owing to its particular political history, no single model can fully explain the development of judicial review in Taiwan. Rather, different models may be used to account for different stages. During the foundational stage, the Court was subservient to the authoritarian regime. During its transition stage, the Court regained authority and began to function like a court that insurance theory presupposes. Owing to the changeable political environment and the lack of an unchallengeable authority, the need for a fair and apolitical arbitrator increased, a fact which explains the increase in judicial power. Besides, political manipulation, the Court also expanded its power actively and cautiously, even when society was highly divided after 2000. In new democracies, the tendency of judicialization has provided the Court with more opportunities to intervene in political decision-making processes. Nonetheless, this may spawn unintended political conflict that threatens to damage the integrity and authority of the judiciary. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。